Hillary Clinton

[MigL]

Hillary Clinton is not a black drug dealer, nor has she been frisked in a very long time.

So can we get back to the OP ?

[swansont]

The greater good is not justification for violating peoples' rights. Or don't you support the constitution?

[tar]

swansont,

 

no, you are right, I should hold the constitution higher, but it is hard when criminals hide behind it

 

Regards, TAR

 

So anyway, I am out. Lost 10 or 12 points on this thread. Obviously somebody doesn't like what I have to say. Consider me silenced. I hate neg reps.I can't talk politics with you guys and gals.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

We're just questioning why some of the things she, and the DNC, have done were even considered in the first place. In today's society everything comes to light, and a lot of these bad decisions are coming to light just before the election. Just when they can do the most damage.

 

What's coming to light is a sack full of apparent resentment and political tripe over an already decided primary and non-issues with intent to elect an unqualified candidate, Trump, to POTUS.

[Delta1212]

It is always hard to watch criminals hide behind the Constitution, but if it doesn't act as a shield for criminals, then it is useless as a shield for anyone else.

 

The Constitution protecting people you don't like is a sign that it is working, because we rarely need protection from people who like us.

[waitforufo]

Hillary Clinton is not a black drug dealer, nor has she been frisked in a very long time.

So can we get back to the OP ?

The moderators would obviously prefer that Hillary Clinton not be discussed at all. That's why they prefer to let this obvious diversion from the OP to continue.

[DrmDoc]

The moderators would obviously prefer that Hillary Clinton not be discussed at all. That's why they prefer to let this obvious diversion from the OP to continue.

 

So, in your opinion, Hillary is less qualified than the only other candidate capable of winning this election because...?

[swansont]

The moderators would obviously prefer that Hillary Clinton not be discussed at all. That's why they prefer to let this obvious diversion from the OP to continue.

 

Hard to take this complaint seriously, given that it's 100% innuendo.

[waitforufo]

 

So, in your opinion, Hillary is less qualified than the only other candidate capable of winning this election because...?

This topic isn't about "the other candidate". It's about Hillary's fitness for office. If you want to talk about her qualifications, feel free. For example you could try to explain her accomplishments as Secretary of State. You know things like Libya, the Russian reset, and talks with Iran. Good luck with that. My posts explain why she us unfit for office, which are in line with the OP.

 

Hard to take this complaint seriously, given that it's 100% innuendo.

Have I and MigL not both requested that this discussion on drugs be stopped in this topic because it is irrelevant to the OP? Yet it continues to drone on, so my previous comment is not 100% innuendo. If there is interest in this discussion on drugs and such, please put it in it's on topic.

[swansont]

Have I and MigL not both requested that this discussion on drugs be stopped in this topic because it is irrelevant to the OP? Yet it continues to drone on, so my previous comment is not 100% innuendo. If there is interest in this discussion on drugs and such, please put it in it's on topic.

 

Have you requested this of moderators who could do anything? No, not so far as I can tell. I looked, and did not see a reported post from this thread pointing this issue out, or requesting posts be split. So you have no evidence that anyone who could take action is aware of the problem.

[DrmDoc]

This topic isn't about "the other candidate". It's about Hillary's fitness for office. If you want to talk about her qualifications, feel free. For example you could try to explain her accomplishments as Secretary of State. You know things like Libya, the Russian reset, and talks with Iran. Good luck with that. My posts explain why she us unfit for office, which are in line with the OP.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood, my question regards her relative qualifications for the presidency, which includes what disqualifies Mrs. Clinton above all other candidates. I'm not asking about your thoughts on the other candidate and you don't have to reference them here, I'm asking you what makes Hillary least qualified. Your commentary thus far do not amount to any specific disqualifying factor unique to Mrs. Clinton that render's her least qualified. Given your continued avoidance here, I may only assume that you don't know of any unique disqualifying factors of which only Mrs. Clinton is guilty.

[swansont]

This topic isn't about "the other candidate". It's about Hillary's fitness for office. If you want to talk about her qualifications, feel free. For example you could try to explain her accomplishments as Secretary of State. You know things like Libya, the Russian reset, and talks with Iran. Good luck with that. My posts explain why she us unfit for office, which are in line with the OP.

 

No, most of it is just bashing her. Many of the assessments can't exist in a vacuum, since this is about voting for a candidate. There's no option to not fill the position if you don't like the applicant pool. Some comparisons have to be made.

 

If it's about her fitness for office and not about bashing, defend the part of the discussion of her "goofy look", for starters.

[MigL]

So if we had Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler running for the office of dictator, you guys would think any criticism of F. Franco would be unjustified because A. Hitler is so much worse ?

Not that I'm comparing the two presidential candidates to those two historic gentlemen, but simply taking your argument to the extreme ( and trying to lighten things up a little )

 

We all know H. Clinton is the better choice, but she has made mistakes.

[DrmDoc]

So if we had Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler running for the office of dictator, you guys would think any criticism of F. Franco would be unjustified because A. Hitler is so much worse ?

Not that I'm comparing the two presidential candidates to those two historic gentlemen, but simply taking your argument to the extreme ( and trying to lighten things up a little )

 

We all know H. Clinton is the better choice, but she has made mistakes.

 

We had primaries. Our candidates were selected by a majority of conscientious voters in each of the major political parties. Now it's time for those same voters to make the right choice. If the nominations of Franco and Adolf we held in a democracy like ours and under the same rules as our democracy, then they would be our choices--if, of course, being the two nominated and most likely to win. However, in my opinion, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump measures quite to the extremes you've exampled.

[hypervalent_iodine]

The moderators would obviously prefer that Hillary Clinton not be discussed at all. That's why they prefer to let this obvious diversion from the OP to continue.

 

!

Moderator Note

If you wish for the moderators to do something about a thread, report it. That's what the feature is there for. If you aren't going to use it, and staff aren't aware of any issue, you don't exactly have any footing to be accusing us of anything.

 

Do not respond to this note within the thread.

[MigL]

Look, DrmDoc, this is a thread specifically about H. Clinton.

D, Trump has his own thread. This is NOT a comparison thread of the two candidates.

The fact that many of us think she is the better candidate, does not absolve her of mistakes or wrong-doing.

Do you believe that because she's the better candidate she should get a free pass from criticism, or that her foibles can be excused because D. Trump's are so much worse ?

 

And you missed the whole point of my Franco/Hitler example.

Taken to the extreme your stance is that F. Franco should not be criticised for his shortcomings because A. Hitler's are so much worse.

( I was NOT comparing them to our presidential candidates )

[DrmDoc]

Look, DrmDoc, this is a thread specifically about H. Clinton.

D, Trump has his own thread. This is NOT a comparison thread of the two candidates.

The fact that many of us think she is the better candidate, does not absolve her of mistakes or wrong-doing.

Do you believe that because she's the better candidate she should get a free pass from criticism, or that her foibles can be excused because D. Trump's are so much worse ?

 

And you missed the whole point of my Franco/Hitler example.

Taken to the extreme your stance is that F. Franco should not be criticised for his shortcomings because A. Hitler's are so much worse.

( I was NOT comparing them to our presidential candidates )

 

Perhaps I did, MigL, but you did infer a comparison between the two candidates with your Franco/Hitler example, although "Trump has his own thread." Your example was an extreme comparison suggestive of a distinction you obviously perceive between Hillary and Donald, although you claim otherwise. That distinction is whether one candidate accused of despicable behavior should not be criticized because the other is more despicable, which suggest how you perceive the furor over criticism of Hillary opposite of Trump. Any suggestion that this was not the motive behind your comparison is disingenuous. I am not suggesting that Hillary shouldn't be criticism, but I am suggesting that such criticism doesn't render her least qualified for the position of President. I'm also suggesting that those criticisms are minor given her other qualifications and that they are primarily manufactured political tripe meant to derail her candidacy.

[MigL]

And I've conceded the point that she's the better candidate.

As a matter of fact, I was one of her earliest supporters on this forum, over a year ago.

 

And you may be of the opinion that those criticisms are manufacture and minor, but other members are not.

And that is what we are discussing.

[Willie71]

On conservative leaning forums, there are people minimizing the Trump concerns, and talking about how they don't understand how anyone could criticize trump when a Clinton presidency is the risk. The limited ability to understand the apologetics on both sides is concerning, as each is using the argument from incredulity. There are a great many people who are doing the exact same things but saying a trump is a loose cannon, but how could you risk a Clinton presidency. It's the same thing we see here, so I don't support that error on either side of the equation. When your campaign is based on "you can't expect anything reasonable, because that's the way it is, but the other guy is even worse." you are gambling with minimizing voter suppression to minimize the impact of gerrymandering, and calculating minimum acceptible risk with the electoral college and swing states.

[swansont]

On conservative leaning forums, there are people minimizing the Trump concerns, and talking about how they don't understand how anyone could criticize trump when a Clinton presidency is the risk. The limited ability to understand the apologetics on both sides is concerning, as each is using the argument from incredulity. There are a great many people who are doing the exact same things but saying a trump is a loose cannon, but how could you risk a Clinton presidency. It's the same thing we see here, so I don't support that error on either side of the equation. When your campaign is based on "you can't expect anything reasonable, because that's the way it is, but the other guy is even worse." you are gambling with minimizing voter suppression to minimize the impact of gerrymandering, and calculating minimum acceptible risk with the electoral college and swing states.

One always has the option of raising substantive objections, backed by by objective facts. Maybe someone should try that.

 

We've gotten her looks, a misrepresentation of her alleged memory issues, a mischaracterization of the email issue, manufactured concerns that someone might mistakenly think Bill is the president, appeals to testosterone, fabricated controversy about allergies as a coverup for her bout with pneumonia, silliness about her being petrified in the situation room and when she goes to certain movies. Plus plenty of sexism, and some racism for added measure.

 

Plenty of innuendo and opinion. Your statement "you can't expect anything reasonable" included. Nothing Clinton has done is reasonable? Are you effing kidding me?

 

I would welcome substantive argument. It would be like an oasis in the desert.

[DrmDoc]

And I've conceded the point that she's the better candidate.

As a matter of fact, I was one of her earliest supporters on this forum, over a year ago.

 

And you may be of the opinion that those criticisms are manufacture and minor, but other members are not.

And that is what we are discussing.

 

That is crystal clear to me, which is why I'm still waiting for a reply to my question encompassing that very subject. Essentially, my question is what makes Mrs. Clinton least qualified? For the people who do have criticisms, I'm not interested in those we could ascribe to other candidates. I'm interested in what uniquely disqualifies Hillary for the job of President?

[MigL]

I have never said she wasn't qualified for the job of President.

My own personal problem with her and the DNC is the underhanded way she was favored for the nomination.

And the fact that B. Sanders has forgiven her and the Democrats says more about his character than hers.

 

Other members may have different priorities, and to them, the lies, health, e-mail, Bill, or even her testosterone are valid concerns.

This thread was specifically set up for voicing those concerns, and I don't think telling them their concerns are nonsense is very American.

( maybe the other thread concerning rights should be expanded to include opinions, and when/if you can have one )

[swansont]

I have never said she wasn't qualified for the job of President.

My own personal problem with her and the DNC is the underhanded way she was favored for the nomination.

And the fact that B. Sanders has forgiven her and the Democrats says more about his character than hers.

 

Other members may have different priorities, and to them, the lies, health, e-mail, Bill, or even her testosterone are valid concerns.

This thread was specifically set up for voicing those concerns, and I don't think telling them their concerns are nonsense is very American.

( maybe the other thread concerning rights should be expanded to include opinions, and when/if you can have one )

But how is she to blame for alleged actions of the DNC?

 

These other concerns don't really stand up to scrutiny when viewed in context. What becomes blindingly obvious is that Clinton is being held to a different standard than other politicians. One wonders how much of the criticism is fishing for reasons to use as justification, and mask the real reason: not wanting to have a woman in charge (and being too wimpy to admit it)

 

What functions of the president actually require a penis? (Or testicles, or testosterone)

[MigL]

Servicing the female interns ???

( sorry, I couldn't resist )

[imatfaal]

Servicing the female interns ???

( sorry, I couldn't resist )

 

Actually I have heard that flung at Mrs Clinton as well - but then powerful women immediately get all sorts of innuendos about their sexuality as part of the course