Hillary Clinton

[Tampitump]

 

You're quite right, it was an expression of disbelief and surprise at your ultimate assessment of the examples you gave. Is this your own assessment through personal review or are you merely parroting right-wing ideology so prevalent in our society?

Little of both. I'm definitely parroting, but I have witnessed these things it and agree with these positions. Again, not right wing. I'm a human being and I belong to absolutely ZERO political factions. I adopt position based on their merits, and based on what my assessment of them are. No boxes are the right shape to put me into.

to hear that there are smart people out there

Are you talking about me?

[tar]

If she listens to Bill it would be good for the country but she would look like Bill's puppet. If she doesn't listen to Bill and stands on her own, I am not sure she has the gravitas, on her own, to pull it off. So opinion, yes, but it still raises the question of whether Bill is an advantage or disadvantage to Hilary.

Thread,

 

In your opinion, if Bill was allowed a third term, and Bill and Hilary were running against each other to be the democrat nominee for President, who would be the better choice? Who do you think would win? If they were no longer married.

 

Regards, TAR

Are we electing Hilary, or are we electing the package?

Edited September 12, 2016 by tar

[DrmDoc]

Little of both. I'm definitely parroting, but I have witnessed these things it and agree with these positions. Again, not right wing. I'm a human being and I belong to absolutely ZERO political factions. I adopt position based on their merits, and based on what my assessment of them are. No boxes are the right shape to put me into.

 

If you're merely repeating positions with which you agree without consideration of both sides of the issue, do you consider your assessment informed? I ask because an uninformed assessment, in my view, is without the support or basis of fair and balanced reasoning. Perhaps this is a subject for later or separate consideration or political discussion.

[Phi for All]

Little of both. I'm definitely parroting, but I have witnessed these things it and agree with these positions. Again, not right wing. I'm a human being and I belong to absolutely ZERO political factions. I adopt position based on their merits, and based on what my assessment of them are. No boxes are the right shape to put me into.

 

Then you should appreciate a more socialistic approach to certain aspects. The merits of many social programs are unquestionable. Investing in educating our children has always been one of the most profitable things we've ever done as a country, even though it's paid for by non-profit funding.

 

The National Parks system. Museums. Non-wealthy people would rarely get to see this kind of stuff if we didn't make these part of social funding.

 

Airports. Do you realize how much it would cost to fly on an airplane if commercial airlines had to build their own? Actually, flying probably wouldn't be a viable business concern without subsidization by taxpayers.

 

For welfare, I'm going to guess and say you fall into the "I don't mind my taxes helping a widowed mother of three get back on her feet, but I'm not going to pay for somebody to buy liquor with their food stamps and ride their jet ski all day" camp. This is usually the impression many conservatives have of the welfare system. And it may be that way in some cases, but if it is it's because a lot of these programs get reduced to that by those nasty capitalist filters our lawmakers have been influenced to use.

 

So if you're looking for merits, be sure to look beyond the capitalism. I think a lot of our social programs start out well-intentioned, get filtered through the for-profit opportunity legislative mill, and end up holding down those who are supposed to be helped up. While simultaneously ridiculing them for being on welfare.

[Tampitump]

Phi for All, I created a thread for the socialism/capitalism, right/left politics debate. Check it out.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This thread is about Hillary Clinton. Can we stick to that topic?

 

Could members also take another look at the rules - cos some of the posts were coming awfully close to breaching rule 2.1 Continued breaches will lead to warnings

Section 2: Posting
To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:

• Be civil.
  • No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.
  • Avoid the use of vulgar language.
  • Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.
  • Please refer to SFN's etiquette guide before posting

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

We will start to hide and trash branches that spread too far from the topic. There is plenty of room in this subforum so open a new thread - as I see has already been done for one topic

 

Thanks.

 

[waitforufo]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-pneumonia-cover-story-proves-instinct-lie-article-1.2788402

 

 

 

In the hours after the Clinton campaign finally came clean (or did it?) Sunday about the candidate's pneumonia diagnosis two days earlier, the only question that mattered was, as NBCNews.com put it, "Clinton's core vulnerability is that most Americans don't find her honest or trustworthy. Will voters now feel like they've been misled about her health?"

So instead of being forced to admit her own frailty, Clinton concocted a lie: it's just allergies, you know, which come from happy things like flowers.

 

Even though she knows that everyone is looking for her next lie, Hillary just can't help herself. Lying is an integral part of her nature.

[Arete]

Even though she knows that everyone is looking for her next lie, Hillary just can't help herself. Lying is an integral part of her nature.

 

The argument becomes disingenuous when you propose Donald Trump as the alternative - who by any objective measure makes far more untrue statements than Clinton. While I'm not a Clinton fan, the argument that her dishonesty makes her less suitable than Trump as a president is simply not based in fact.

[waitforufo]

 

The argument becomes disingenuous when you propose Donald Trump as the alternative - who by any objective measure makes far more untrue statements than Clinton. While I'm not a Clinton fan, the argument that her dishonesty makes her less suitable than Trump as a president is simply not based in fact.

If you would like to talk about Donald Trump. There is a separate topic for that. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93445-donald-trump/

 

This topic is exploring Hillary Clinton.

[Mordred]

 

exploring Hillary Clinton.

That doesn't sound too good lol

[DrmDoc]

If you would like to talk about Donald Trump. There is a separate topic for that. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93445-donald-trump/

 

This topic is exploring Hillary Clinton.

 

Regarding Mrs. Clinton, does her penchant for lying disqualify her candidacy? If so, why? Wouldn't we be a nation without government if that metric, lying, was a disqualifying factor in all elections?

[swansont]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-pneumonia-cover-story-proves-instinct-lie-article-1.2788402

 

 

Even though she knows that everyone is looking for her next lie, Hillary just can't help herself. Lying is an integral part of her nature.

 

 

Please explain to me how a coughing episode and subsequent article attributing it to allergies that was dated Sep 5 (linked to in your link) is lying about a diagnosis that was delivered on Sep 9?

[waitforufo]

 

 

Please explain to me how a coughing episode and subsequent article attributing it to allergies that was dated Sep 5 (linked to in your link) is lying about a diagnosis that was delivered on Sep 9?

People have been questioning her health for quite some time. When she coughed up a lunger on Sep 5 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B46oJlwqHWY],many people again questioned her health and were called conspiracy theory nut jobs. She had allergies we were told. So when she found out she had pneumonia on Friday, September 9, she should have announced her condition. Also on September 9/11 after her episode, her campaign, which she controls, said she was overheated, then Hillary her self came out and said when asked that she was just fine. I have provided that video as well. Then we get the truth about pneumonia. She lies even when the truth is better. A Friday announcement would likely have garnered her sympathy. Liars don't get much of that.

[iNow]

Fortunately, you'll be safe from all her icky germs in your bubble!

 

[waitforufo]

Fortunately, you'll be safe from all her icky germs in your bubble!

 

Hillary's lies are contagious. They only harm her.

[DrmDoc]

Hillary's lies are contagious. They only harm her.

 

Still waiting for an answer...

[Arete]

 

Still waiting for an answer...

 

Unfortunately, it would seem the lack of a response, and repetition of the argument is an answer in of itself - that is the argument is, at its core, an ad hominem fallacy.

[waitforufo]

 

Regarding Mrs. Clinton, does her penchant for lying disqualify her candidacy? If so, why? Wouldn't we be a nation without government if that metric, lying, was a disqualifying factor in all elections?

It doesn't disqualify her candidacy, its just that no one should vote for her. For example, some have said that Bernie Sanders has influenced Hillary's positions. Things like the PTT. Can you really believe her? She said PTT was the gold standard of trade agreements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLQzeCoNnA. Do you really believe she is going to make significant changes to the PTT, or do you think she is just trying to get Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for her. Well she is a liar, so don't believe her. It's that simple.

 

Edit after DrmDoc comment below: I meant TPP not PTT which is obvious from my link.

Edited September 12, 2016 by waitforufo

[DrmDoc]

It doesn't disqualify her candidacy, its just that no one should vote for her. For example, some have said that Bernie Sanders has influenced Hillary's positions. Things like the PTT. Can you really believe her? She said PTT was the gold standard of trade agreements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLQzeCoNnA. Do you really believe she is going to make significant changes to the PTT, or do you think she is just trying to get Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for her. Well she is a liar, so don't believe her. It's that simple.

 

If I now understand correctly, it isn't her lying but her penchant for changing positions? I visited the PTT website and posted link in with prior comments here. I'm curious, what do you find so objectionable about the PTT and Mrs. Clinton's current stance?

[waitforufo]

 

If I now understand correctly, it isn't her lying but her penchant for changing positions? I visited the PTT website and posted link in with prior comments here. I'm curious, what do you find so objectionable about the PTT and Mrs. Clinton's current stance?

My position on the TPP is irrelevant. The question is can you believe Hillary. She as a long storied history of lying. Don't believe her.

 

And excuse me, TPP.

Edited September 12, 2016 by waitforufo

[swansont]

People have been questioning her health for quite some time. When she coughed up a lunger on Sep 5 [,]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B46oJlwqHWY],many people again questioned her health and were called conspiracy theory nut jobs. She had allergies we were told. So when she found out she had pneumonia on Friday, September 9, she should have announced her condition. Also on September 9/11 after her episode, her campaign, which she controls, said she was overheated, then Hillary her self came out and said when asked that she was just fine. I have provided that video as well. Then we get the truth about pneumonia. She lies even when the truth is better. A Friday announcement would likely have garnered her sympathy. Liars don't get much of that.

 

This does not address my question.

[DrmDoc]

My position on the PTT is irrelevant. The question is can you believe Hillary. She as a long storied history of lying. Don't believe her.

 

Honestly, sincerely, yes! As much as I would any other politician including Trump. For me, it isn't so much about what they say, it's what they do. Politicians lie all the time and it doesn't put me off as much as it does others. I evaluate actions and from what I've observed of Mrs. Clinton's past acts, she cares more about our nation and people than her competitor.

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[waitforufo]

 

Honestly, sincerely, yes! As much as I would any other politician including Trump. For me, it isn't so much about what they say, it's what they do. Politicians lie all the time and it doesn't put me off as much as it does others. I evaluate actions and from what I've observed of Mrs. Clinton's past acts, she cares more about our nation and people than her competitor.

She sure made herself rich in the process of caring about our nation while lying. Nice job if you can get it.

[DrmDoc]

She sure made herself rich in the process of caring about our nation while lying. Nice job if you can get it.

 

So, she made a living before her candidacy like her competitor...why is that so objectionable. She has revealed her sources of wealth unlike her competitor. No doubt if she hadn't, you might have thought she had something to hide like the other candidate...or perhaps you don't think he does but that's irrelevant here.

[waitforufo]

This does not address my question.

It's called a lie by omission.

 

 

 

So, she made a living before her candidacy like her competitor...why is that so objectionable. She has revealed her sources of wealth unlike her competitor. No doubt if she hadn't, you might have thought she had something to hide like the other candidate...or perhaps you don't think he does but that's irrelevant here.

I'm just impressed by her money making abilities, particularly since she said "dead broke" after getting out of the white house.