Hillary

[Seth Milner]

What, gullible Seth Milner utterly failed investigation® again? Say it ain't so.

Well, actually his link was to the Snopes report, but he picked some from a much longer list to highlight, and the ones he picked were, ummmm, "inaccurate."

Thanks, my bad. What, gullible Seth Milner utterly failed comprehension® again? Say it ain't so.

He just posts 'em, he doesn't read 'em.

Nope. I picked out the ones that would . . . .well, you know. It worked!
There was really no point in posting the words that were true; the libs were already aware of those.

[O Really]

Interesting, I went back and read over the list - except for the ones made up by the malcontent secret service guy, there really isn't much that might not have been said - or have been said - by most any male in an authority position, particularly an alpha-male sort, which is pretty common. Happens in law firms, in corporations, in hospitals, most everywhere. Not that rudeness is a virtue, but if everybody saying things like that was excoriated into a beast list, there'd be more creatures in DC than all the Wesen in Portland. But then, those are males, for whom such behaviour, like that of short-tempered chefs, shows their drive, their desire for excellence, their "sense of urgency," but for a female, it's just bitchy.

[O Really]

The hideous, diabolical truth about Hillary...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/80fa214d-7 ... truth.html

[billy.pilgrim]

The hideous, diabolical truth about Hillary...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/80fa214d-7 ... truth.html

this trumps that



http://www.nationalenquirer.com/



National EnquirerSUBSCRIBE

BREAKING NEWS
Hillary Fixer Breaks Ranks: I Arranged Sex Trysts For Her — With Men & WOMEN
Stunning revelations of Clinton bag man!


By National ENQUIRER Staff
Oct 18, 2016 @ 13:38PM
hillary clinton lesbian sex claims scandals
Hillary Clinton is a secret sex freak who paid fixers to set up illicit romps with both men AND women!

That’s the blockbuster revelation from a former Clinton family operative who is sensationally breaking ranks with his one-time bosses to speak to The National ENQUIRER in a bombshell 9-page cover story — on newsstands Wednesday.

“I arranged a meeting for Hillary and a woman in an exclusive Beverly Hills hotel,” the man, who was hired by the Clintons, via a Hollywood executive, to cover up their scandals, told The ENQUIRER.

[Vrede too]

According to BoldProgressives.org:

See the debate last night? WOW!

Hillary Clinton made history for progressives. Gone are the days of a Democratic Party advocating austerity, budget cuts, and capitulation to Republican politicians.

Last night was the first general election debate ever where a Democratic candidate called for expanding Social Security, debt-free college, raising taxes on the rich, overturning Citizens United, and opposing bad trade deals like the TPP.

Clinton's closing argument to voters is a progressive message that inspires voters and that we worked together for years to make central in the national debate. And today's headlines are filled with Republican panic that Democrats might win both Houses of Congress.

We could be on the verge of the biggest progressive governing moment in generations....

Corporate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way are rolling in their political graves. When bold progressives like Russ Feingold, Zephyr Teachout, Pramilla Jayapal, and Jamie Raskin join Elizabeth Warren in Congress, that will be one more nail in the coffin of bad ideas.

We are almost there. A progressive governing moment is at our fingertips.

I think Hillary will be as moderate as she's always been, but it's possible that being in her last office will unleash her inner flaming lefty. Any guesses?

[O Really]

Well, if it was me, I'd go full lefty, on the strategy that if I started with less, the obstructinistas would just grind anything down to nothing. There is some argument (who knows if it's good) that if Obama had gone full-throated after a single-payer system, the result might have been better than Obamacare turned out. She knows the House Republicans will try to stonewall no matter what. Go for the big play. But she may think that Bill got by with triangulation and she may try to get some Republican support. As if.

[rstrong]

There is some argument (who knows if it's good) that if Obama had gone full-throated after a single-payer system, the result might have been better than Obamacare turned out.

He *did* go full-throated after a single-payer system. It was a MAJOR fight in early/mid 2009. But he needed a supermajority in Congress, and all he had was a majority.

Later in 2009, once that was defeated, he adopted the Republican alternative lock, stock and personal mandate as the ACA. That got him the "independent" votes he needed. Despite all the anti-ACA grandstanding since, there was probably a lot of horse-trading with Republicans to get it passed.

[Vrede too]

No, Obama went partial-throated for the public option. Single-payer was never really part of the DC debate and testimony in favor of it wasn't even allowed in the Senate hearings.

[rstrong]

No, Obama went partial-throated for the public option. Single-payer was never really part of the DC debate and testimony in favor of it wasn't even allowed in the Senate hearings.

The single-payer Medicare for All Act was a big part of the debate in early-mid-2009. But it wasn't put up for a vote because the Democrats simply didn't have the votes. All they had was a majority.

[Vrede too]

That was in the House. The Senate always had control, and from your link:

... During the 2009 health care debates over the bill that became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 676 was expected to be debated and voted upon by the House in September 2009, but was never debated....

Health care was a major part of Barack Obama's campaign promises, and while he admitted that only a single payer system would provide universal coverage, the plan favored by Obama would be to increase insurance coverage instead....

That said, I'm not trying to make the case "that if Obama had gone full-throated after a single-payer system, the result might have been better than Obamacare turned out." I don't know, but he never did try.

[Vrede too]

So far, understanding that we'll never be unanimous on each item, the list includes:

Oprah: "She's not coming over to your house! You don't have to like her."
She's better than Trump (or any other Republican). It really doesn't matter if she's the Devil's concubine or if she's the reincarnation of Tammany Hall.
Really no worse than Colin Powell and really, really no worse than Jeb!
Tried to get us universal healthcare 23 years ago, and took a truckload of unwarranted personal heat for it.
Has always kept fighting effectively no matter what was thrown at her.
Once having left Arkansas she never went back ("probably" a positive for her and Arkansas).
Hillary has the most directly applicable professional experience of most any other Presidential candidate, ever. And in all those jobs, she has done a competent job.
Building relationships and bridges. Hillary understands that.
Will try to overturn Citizens United and increase transparency in campaign funding.
Corrupt but competent, not slimy and shoddy.
Good DNC speaker lineup.
Fluent in Spanish VP pick.
Long time children's advocate.
Most progressive Dem Platform ever.
The Supreme Court!!!
Would be our 1st female Head of State, thus catching us up with several Muslim nations.
Mythological.
Better option for having access to all US nuclear weapons.
Looked great for her DNC speech, better than 1960 Nixon.
Doesn't look good on the honesty front except when you stand her next to ANYONE in the 2016 or 2012 Republican clown cars. And probably a few election cycles before that.
Crusader for the downtrodden.
Spent a long time advocating for women's rights, access to healthcare and more.... a successful woman ... she's set a good example in that regard.
A highly successful person who is capable of being President of the United States ... setting an example for anyone who cares to about it that hard work and persistence toward a goal can sometimes pay off - even against big odds.
Heroic.
She's the "family values" candidate. Never divorced, no affairs, didn't walk away from her marriage when her husband had an affair, no accusations of rape or sexual harassment.
Like "the hated New England (Patriots)" or like the mediocre Buffalo Bills, both of which are better than the Cleveland Browns.
First job the summer after college was working in a seasonal fish factory in Valdez. (could have been me, I had several friends that did that or worked on fishing boats in AK)
Turned down Bill's marriage proposals many times.
After graduating from law school, worked as a lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund.
Voted against President Bush’s big tax-cut packages of 2001 and 2003.

[O Really]

I saw something interesting earlier regarding Hillary's "unfavorable" rating. Despite Trump's "disaster" talk, she left the Senate with something like 68% favorable rating. She had over 60% as Secretary of State. The unfavorables started going up when she again started (resumed) running for President and was subject to daily trashing and the "scandal" du jour. Bottom line (from that opinion), people like her when she's in a job, not so much when she's running.

[Vrede too]

Without opining on their validity, Benghazi happened just before she left State and the email mess came out afterwards.

[O Really]

Without opining on their validity, Benghazi happened just before she left State and the email mess came out afterwards.

True that, but why were those such sensations? Wouldn't be part of an all out effort to scuttle her butt, would it?

[Vrede too]

Yes re Benghazi, mixed re the email mess, also the Clinton Foundation. The 3 of them go a long way to explain the favorable ratings changes, not necessarily justify them.

[O Really]

All of those are just like Whitewater, the Travel Office, or the late Vince Foster. Pick a fact; adapt it to your purpose; blow it out of proportion; start saying it like it's a synonym for "something evil here goes" and make the victim constantly deny something that's in essence proving a negative. You can pretty much make a monster out of anybody.

[O Really]

I'm not a Hillary-hater. Generally I say I've voted for Hillary five times - once in 92, once in 96, again in 2008 and 2016 (twice). But she's not a very good campaigner, and not much of a warm and fuzzy people person. She can and does rub people the wrong way (although apparently not by the pussy), and she has made some errors from time to time. But overall, she's got a good record of accomplishment and, IMNVHO, is taking a lot of the heat she is just because she's a "she" that's married to Bill Clinton. "Scandal" ran off his back like water off a duck. Not everybody can pull that off.

[Vrede too]

Yes re Benghazi, mixed re the email mess, also the Clinton Foundation. The 3 of them go a long way to explain the favorable ratings changes, not necessarily justify them.

All of those are just like ... You can pretty much make a monster out of anybody.

I think there are differences among them and the FBI and State's scathing of Hillary over the emails is not boogeyman creation. I can understand how one or more have swayed the polls, though my own ambivalence predates all of them. Benghazi is ridiculous and I'm still unsure about the Clinton Foundation.

[O Really]

Not to say that using the personal server was a good idea, but since it came up during the witch hunt that others had also followed a similar practice, I would expect some scathing and pilloring of all the scurrilous scoundrels who may have done so. Root them out, badger them in Congressional hearings. Wonder why that isn't happening. Wonder why Gowdy or some other toad hasn't called for an investigation just to find out whether Powell or somebody else had ever used a non-approved server. Isn't it a compelling question. It was alleged that they did. Where is the investigation? Oh yeah, it's just Hillary in the pillory, I guess.

And why isn't Hillary's explanation believable, that she didn't intentionally send classified information? After months of digging, they come up with 110 or so, almost all the lowest classification (confidential) and nothing addressing the subject content as to whether it was of substance. No distinction in the different levels of "classified," treating for purposes of criticism confidential the same as top secret. Why isn't the finding that there was likely no breach believable? What would she have had to do to satisfy the witch-hunters other than light herself on the stake?

[rstrong]

Wonder why Gowdy or some other toad hasn't called for an investigation just to find out whether Powell or somebody else had ever used a non-approved server. Isn't it a compelling question. It was alleged that they did. Where is the investigation? Oh yeah, it's just Hillary in the pillory, I guess.

It was more than alleged.

Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails. In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.

Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.

And Jeb!, who as Florida governor used his own server against the rules to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants. Other 2016 candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own missing email scandals. Mitt Romney too.

And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests.

And why isn't Hillary's explanation believable, that she didn't intentionally send classified information? After months of digging, they come up with 110 or so, almost all the lowest classification (confidential) and nothing addressing the subject content as to whether it was of substance.

And if I understand correctly, they weren't classified emails that she sent out. In every case it was information - without the headers that marked them as classified - that others sent her.