Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
skyth wrote: Just wait until someone from Ireland or England sues the US for supporting the IRA. Or someone from Russia sues the US for supporting and arming the Taliban/Bin Laden.
Allowing US citizens to sue other countries for 'supporting' terrorists is short sighted with all the terrorists the US has supported.
Actually... it opens the door to any countries found to have supported terrorisms... so, it may not be so shortsighted.
I still think it's a dumb policy.
Remember, to a rather significant part of the world, the U.S. is one of those countries. Unless you really want all of the CIA's dirty laundry in the open...
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Prestor Jon wrote: Who's confabulating? The fact that the FBI investigation could have gone worse for Hillary doesn't mean that it went well for her.
It is true that the investigation and its findings weren't good for Clinton. But it is also clear that was she did wasn't a felony, has never been treated as a felony, and would be ridiculous to be treated as a felony.
And it is also true that it is the one significant black mark against Clinton - she used a private server to skirt around transparency laws and that's not okay. It is also true that it was something also done by previous Secretaries of State, but while that makes the attempts to claim Clinton is somehow uniquely corrupt comical, it doesn't make Clinton's action okay.
But it remains the one black mark against a very long record of public service.
So from there we have to look at the attempt of the right wing, and of many people on this thread, to equate that one mark against Clinton's record, against the dozen or more instances in Trump's record where he's scammed people, bribed people, used charity funds for personal vanity, and so on. The only sensible conclusion is that the two records are nothing alike, and anyone who claims that they are is being ridiculous.
The two records of Clinton and Trump aren't alike but there is a difference between Hillary being less worse than Trump and being an objectively good candidate. Hillary doesn't have a "very long record of public service" she as 2 terms as a US Senator from NY and one term as Secretary of State, that 12 years. It's as long as Obama's record as a state legislator and US Senator and Hillary's campaign called out Obama as inexperienced in 2008. A very long record of public service would be somebody like Chuck Schumer the senior US senator from NY, he was in the state legislature from 1975-7980, US Congress from 1981-1998 and US Senate 1999-present, that's 41 years.
All of Hillary's drawbacks that made her less appealing than Obama in 2008 still apply in 2016 she's just running against an incredibly bad candidate this time. Hillary isn't the best/most ideal candidate for the Democrats but it was her turn, she had Party support and Bernie was the only one willing to really challenge her. The race is absurdly close and it isn't because Trump is surprising adept it's because a large enough contingent of Republicans and Republican leaning voters are willing to back Trump in order to oppose Hillary. Trump was and still is the most unlikable/unfavorable politician in the history of candidates' unfavorability ratings and he's leading Hillary in multiple states and that's because Hillary isn't a good candidate she's just less awful.
Being first Lady of the state and country gives you lots of experience as well. She was involved with policy back then. The first pushbacks from Republicans against Hillary came when she tried to get health care reform done during Bill's first term.
skyth wrote: Being first Lady of the state and country gives you lots of experience as well. She was involved with policy back then. The first pushbacks from Republicans against Hillary came when she tried to get health care reform done during Bill's first term.
She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife. If she wanted to help draft and pass federal legislation she should have run for congress instead of flaunting the rule of law for the sake of stroking her ego.
skyth wrote: Being first Lady of the state and country gives you lots of experience as well. She was involved with policy back then. The first pushbacks from Republicans against Hillary came when she tried to get health care reform done during Bill's first term.
She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife. If she wanted to help draft and pass federal legislation she should have run for congress instead of flaunting the rule of law for the sake of stroking her ego.
Do you feel this way about every pet project of every first lady?
I can help draft and help pass federal legislation, you can, anybody can.
I can exert authority without being an expert on anything and try to influence policy, you can, anybody can.
What extraconstitutional influence on congress did she try to create?
What rule of flaw was she flaunting during the 90's healthcare reform proposals?
Hillary Clinton has been a court-appointed defence lawyer, 6 years First Lady of Arkansas, 8 years First Lady of the USA, during which times she actually did useful public work, 8 years a senator, and 4 years Secretary of State.
This is an impressive record of genuine public service by anyone's standard, let alone compared with Trump whose career includes running a number of companies into the ground, welching partners, charities, and students, being a "reality TV" presenter, and not much else.
Sadly in the modern USA, an impressive record of public service actually rules you out from the foremost public job in the nation, head of state and commander of the armed forces.
skyth wrote: Being first Lady of the state and country gives you lots of experience as well. She was involved with policy back then. The first pushbacks from Republicans against Hillary came when she tried to get health care reform done during Bill's first term.
She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife. If she wanted to help draft and pass federal legislation she should have run for congress instead of flaunting the rule of law for the sake of stroking her ego.
Do you feel this way about every pet project of every first lady?
I can help draft and help pass federal legislation, you can, anybody can.
I can exert authority without being an expert on anything and try to influence policy, you can, anybody can.
What extraconstitutional influence on congress did she try to create?
What rule of flaw was she flaunting during the 90's healthcare reform proposals?
Anything that requires federal legislation especially legislation reforming a massive chunk of our economy isn't a pet project. I would feel the same way about any First Lady or first man who tries to insert herself or himself into the lawful legislative process wherein he/she has no authority or standing to be a party to. If Hillary wanted to participate in drafting, proposing and passing federal legislation she should have run for office. Where in the constitution is the First Lady granted authority to be a de facto member of congress or have grounds to usurp congressional powers and responsibilities? What law or statute gives the spouse of the president standing to be involved in the legislative process?
Kilkrazy wrote: Hillary Clinton has been a court-appointed defence lawyer, 6 years First Lady of Arkansas, 8 years First Lady of the USA, during which times she actually did useful public work, 8 years a senator, and 4 years Secretary of State.
This is an impressive record of genuine public service by anyone's standard, let alone compared with Trump whose career includes running a number of companies into the ground, welching partners, charities, and students, being a "reality TV" presenter, and not much else.
Sadly in the modern USA, an impressive record of public service actually rules you out from the foremost public job in the nation, head of state and commander of the armed forces.
What's impressive about being a lawyer? We literally have millions of lawyers. Likewise while a certain level of deportment is expected from a spouse of an elected official I fail to see how being married to a politician is an impressive public service of any kind.
skyth wrote: Being first Lady of the state and country gives you lots of experience as well. She was involved with policy back then. The first pushbacks from Republicans against Hillary came when she tried to get health care reform done during Bill's first term.
She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife. If she wanted to help draft and pass federal legislation she should have run for congress instead of flaunting the rule of law for the sake of stroking her ego.
Do you feel this way about every pet project of every first lady?
I can help draft and help pass federal legislation, you can, anybody can.
I can exert authority without being an expert on anything and try to influence policy, you can, anybody can.
What extraconstitutional influence on congress did she try to create?
What rule of flaw was she flaunting during the 90's healthcare reform proposals?
Anything that requires federal legislation especially legislation reforming a massive chunk of our economy isn't a pet project. I would feel the same way about any First Lady or first man who tries to insert herself or himself into the lawful legislative process wherein he/she has no authority or standing to be a party to. If Hillary wanted to participate in drafting, proposing and passing federal legislation she should have run for office. Where in the constitution is the First Lady granted authority to be a de facto member of congress or have grounds to usurp congressional powers and responsibilities? What law or statute gives the spouse of the president standing to be involved in the legislative process?
she's an american, that's her pass into the legislative process. the question is why aren't you involved in it.
As sirlynchmob said, there is no law blocking anybody from drafting legislation if they wish to. They'd then need an elected official to present it to congress or whatever.
Or are you arguing that nobody but elected officials should be involved in drafting or proposing legislation? So no scientists, economists, doctors etc. who are not elected representatives in congress should be allowed any input?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: As sirlynchmob said, there is no law blocking anybody from drafting legislation if they wish to. They'd then need an elected official to present it to congress or whatever.
Or are you arguing that nobody but elected officials should be involved in drafting or proposing legislation? So no scientists, economists, doctors etc. who are not elected representatives in congress should be allowed any input?
not to mention most laws are drafted by lobbyist anyways who directly benefit from them. There was a group a year or so ago that drafted laws for many different companies, I can't remember the name of them right now to search for them. seems like the only ones who don't draft laws are the elected officials.
skyth wrote: Being first Lady of the state and country gives you lots of experience as well. She was involved with policy back then. The first pushbacks from Republicans against Hillary came when she tried to get health care reform done during Bill's first term.
She was an unelected person who held no office, she wasn't even a federal employee, she had no training or background that made her any kind of expert on healthcare she was trying to exert authority she didn't have to create extraconstitutional influence on congress simply because she wanted to more political power than just being Bill's wife. If she wanted to help draft and pass federal legislation she should have run for congress instead of flaunting the rule of law for the sake of stroking her ego.
Do you feel this way about every pet project of every first lady?
I can help draft and help pass federal legislation, you can, anybody can.
I can exert authority without being an expert on anything and try to influence policy, you can, anybody can.
What extraconstitutional influence on congress did she try to create?
What rule of flaw was she flaunting during the 90's healthcare reform proposals?
Anything that requires federal legislation especially legislation reforming a massive chunk of our economy isn't a pet project. I would feel the same way about any First Lady or first man who tries to insert herself or himself into the lawful legislative process wherein he/she has no authority or standing to be a party to. If Hillary wanted to participate in drafting, proposing and passing federal legislation she should have run for office. ?
A legislator is only needed for two things: to introduce a bill, and to vote on it.
There is absolutely nothing preventing me, or you, or the first lady, or some random guy in Poland, from writing a 1000 page law and tell people that I think it would make a great law, take that 1000 page law and hand it to a legislator who introduces it, and then I can talk any legislators that want to listen to me into passing it.
I can write a law, get it introduced, and get it passed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about that. In fact, especially at the state legislature level, it is how a ton of laws are actually passed. There are think tanks that have "insert state and bill number" legislative templates to hand out to anybody that will listen for just that purpose.
Where in the constitution is the First Lady granted authority to be a de facto member of congress or have grounds to usurp congressional powers and responsibilities?
What has she done to usurp congressional powers and responsibilities during the attempt at healthcare reform in the 90s?
What law or statute gives the spouse of the president standing to be involved in the legislative process
The same statue that gives me the standing to be write laws, get them introduced, and lobby for passage in the Oklahoma legislature. All of which I have done as a private citizen, as the chairperson of a third party, as a member of the state coalition for ballot access reform, as a member of the political action group of the Oklahoma Nurses Association, and as a person who has served as nurse of the day and walked the house and senate chambers in Oklahoma, talking to legislators and providing them with my professional knowledge and expertise to try to influence laws that impact public health in Oklahoma.
D... at least you're coming from a position of experience. HRC's push for Hillary care was troublesome as it wasn't backed by any knowledge or experience in the healthcare industry. Frankly... that's a problem that many politicians share, not just Hillary. 'Tis why you hear about special interest groups/lobbiest actually writing some of the bills....
Hillary Clinton has wrestled with allegations surrounding her husband’s infidelities for much of their 40-year marriage, including a sexual harassment lawsuit, a grand jury investigation and an impeachment vote centered on his untruthfulness about a relationship with a White House intern.
Now, her Republican opponent Donald Trump and his surrogates have signaled that he may bring up the subject in the next presidential debate, treacherous territory, given his own infidelities and treatment of women.
Clinton’s friends say they have seen her deal with Bill Clinton’s conduct before, bristling at threats and countering them with steely determination. Her reaction, said longtime Arkansas friend Jim Blair, is to face accusers and respond thusly: “These people are not going to run over us.”
Her detractors, though, say that Clinton has unfairly lashed out over the years at the women involved in her husband’s indiscretions. Her responses have forced her to walk a fine line during the campaign on sexual assault issues, even as she builds strong political support among female voters.
Trump and his backers have kept the subject alive with taunting social-media messages, and this week, Trump congratulated himself for taking the high road Monday in the first debate by not saying something “extremely rough” about the Clinton family. He added that he might not show the same restraint at the next public forum on Oct. 9.
Eric Trump said Tuesday that his father had displayed “courage” by not waging the attack, even as Trump’s surrogates began to do so on national television. Clinton’s allies say she is well-equipped to fend off the attacks.
Clinton’s Little Rock pastor, the Rev. Ed Matthews, recalled a conversation with her in 1992 after he noticed explicit drawings of Bill Clinton in the parking lot just outside the church that Hillary and Chelsea Clinton attended.
The pastor said he asked her in a phone call how she was dealing with it.
She responded bluntly, the Methodist minister said in an interview, telling him that her family had dealt with such rumors for years and would get through it.
The Trump campaign has argued that the issue facing Hillary Clinton as a candidate is not the behavior of her husband but the role she played in shaping responses to accusers. She discredited claims later revealed to be true and worked behind the scenes to help manage the allegations, according to former aides.
In November, the issue surfaced again after the Democratic candidate sent out a tweet saying that assault victims deserve to be believed. At a public forum in December, a questioner confronted Clinton and asked whether her comment also applied to her husband’s accusers.
“I would say that everybody should be believed at first,” she said, “until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
On Wednesday, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement: “After his disastrous debate performance and his sexist attack on a former Miss Universe over her weight, Donald Trump is now trying to deflect by going after Hillary Clinton about her marriage.
“While Trump and lieutenants like Roger Stone and David Bossie may want to dredge up failed attacks from the 1990s, as many Republicans have warned, this is a mistake that is going to backfire. He can try to distract from his demeaning comments against women, but if Donald Trump thinks these attacks against Hillary Clinton are going to throw her off her game and what matters to move this country forward, he is wrong.”
‘She knew he liked attention’ Hillary Rodham moved to Arkansas in 1974, and Blair said rumors of Bill’s womanizing were not a dealbreaker for Hillary before she agreed to marry him in 1975.
[From spouse to senator: The evolution of Hillary Clinton, politician]
“She knew he liked attention, and he liked attention from anyone,” Blair said. “From the barber, the shoeshine boy, the homeless man. It didn’t matter.”
Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas in 1978 and served as attitudes were shifting about the relevance of politicians’ sex lives. Presidential candidate Gary Hart’s overnight cruise with a young woman doomed his hopes in 1987. Not long after, Bill Clinton’s then-chief of staff Betsey Wright confronted him and told him to come clean with his wife, Wright wrote in emails now archived at the University of Arkansas.
“Some day I hope Hillary will understand why Bill and I developed such a tense relationship,” Wright wrote in 1998. Wright declined interview requests.
A marital crisis erupted while Bill Clinton was governor, and Hillary Clinton’s biographer Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman In Charge” that it involved his lengthy affair with a Little Rock woman.
Hillary Clinton may have become aware of her husband’s straying, “but she never accepted it,” said her longtime friend Ann Henry.
Hillary Clinton has been forthcoming about these painful early times. She told Talk Magazine in 1998 that the couple confronted his cheating in the late 1980s. “I thought he understood it, but he didn’t go deep enough or work hard enough,” she said.
Blair said Hillary Clinton realized that the infidelities threatened more than their marriage. “Her idea, I think, was, if he’s going to be politically successful they have to become more conventional people who are more in tune with values of generations other than theirs,” Blair said.
When Bill Clinton launched a presidential run in 1991, his wife and senior staff considered how to deal with what came to be known as “bimbo eruptions.”
“I think, by then, Hillary had a very good notion of Bill’s behavior,” said her longtime friend Nancy Pietrafesa. “Maybe she endured it, but I don’t think she condoned it.”
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton dismissed an accusation made by Gennifer Flowers, the singer who sold her story to a supermarket tabloid after having previously denied an affair. In an ABC News interview, she called Flowers “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, “I mean, I would crucify her.”
Hillary Clinton’s support for her husband was crucial, and she sat by his side during a crucial “60 Minutes” interview, saying she was not like the victim in Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man.” Campaign pollster Stan Greenberg said at the time that the public would disregard the allegations if they believed he had been truthful to his wife.
Six years later, Bill Clinton acknowledged a sexual encounter with Flowers.
As other women emerged, Hillary Clinton helped forge aggressive defenses.
Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”
By July 1992, the campaign hired private detective Jack Palladino to investigate the accusers involved in two dozen allegations.
In 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleged in a lawsuit that Bill Clinton groped her in a hotel room three years earlier. Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography, “Living History,” that she erred in opposing an early settlement.
Eventually, Bill Clinton settled for $850,000. During discovery, Jones’s attorneys found out about White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Her husband denied the relationship, and Hillary Clinton blamed the allegations on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Asked on “Good Morning America” if her husband had been truthful, she said, “I know he has.”
A former White House aide who spoke on the conditions of anonymity to talk about private discussions said Hillary Clinton blamed the scandal on political enemies and insisted that privacy was sacred.
Bill Clinton admitted his untruthfulness in August 1998.
Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography that her husband claimed Lewinsky had misinterpreted his attention. “It was such a familiar scenario that I had little trouble believing the accusations were groundless,” she wrote.
A chill fell over the White House as the truth about Lewinsky emerged, former staffers and friends said.
“She had to do what she had always done before: swallow her doubts, stand by her man and savage his enemies,” Stephanopoulos wrote, describing Hillary Clinton’s reaction.
“I think it was obvious she was more than mad, more than upset,” said Mary Mel French, a White House aide during the Clinton years. “She wasn’t speaking to him. . . . It took a long time for that to settle down.”
Hillary Clinton did not speak publicly about Lewinsky and confided in few people. Matthews, her Little Rock pastor, said he offered to listen, but she warned him that he might be subpoenaed.
“She’s not the type of person who calls friends and cries about it,” Henry said.
Hillary Clinton opened up to Blair’s wife, Diane, a few weeks later, according to a diary kept by the now-deceased friend. “She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles,” Diane Blair wrote. “It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a ‘narcissistic loony toon;’ but it was beyond control.”
Lewinsky wrote in Vanity Fair in 2014 that she found Hillary Clinton’s “impulse to blame the Woman — not only me, but herself — troubling.” She declined an interview request.
Accuser Juanita Broaddrick, whose claim of a 1978 sexual assault has been denied by the Clintons, thinks Hillary Clinton was too passive. “I always felt if she’d been a stronger person . . . she could have done something about his behavior,” she said.
Questions during Senate run In 2000, while running for the U.S. Senate seat in New York, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she misled the public by defending her husband.
“It is something that I regret deeply that anyone had to go through,” she said. “And I wish that we all could look at it from the perspective of history, but we can’t yet.”
In her treatment of the accusers, Trump has called Clinton an enabler.
Her friends say it’s much more benign.
“I think she felt that she had committed her life to this guy,” Jim Blair said. “They can debate politics from breakfast until bedtime and never get tired of it. She wanted to spend the rest of her life with him. She loved him. It’s as simple as that.”
skyth wrote: And we have example number 684366 of why people don't take complaints about Clinton as being based in any sort of reality.
So... you believe Paula Jones got a $800,000 settlement based on a sexual harassment lie? (he allegedly groped her).
Jaunita Broddrick alleged that he raped in all those years ago...and was/is remarkably consistent in her story... that's a lie too?
Not to mention the multiple other infidelities that Billy-o Clinton has admitted....
The issue isn't to hold Hillary accountable for Bill's transgression. That's really between her and Billy.
It's the fact this Hillary is a women who was downright publicly vicious in her attacks against women who was telling the truth about an affair with her husband. But, the capper were her attempts to discredit the rape of Jaunita Broddrick.
You'll chalk it up as her "standing with her man" for his transgression... I'll continue to believe it was a craven exercise to maintain the power couple's brand for future politcal endeavors... and look... it's here now. So, yes, her past actions can and should be held to account in whether or not she should be President.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WrentheFaceless wrote: It disgusts me that they're now blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's infidelity.
If the GOP wasn't seen as the anti-women party yet, this sure isnt helping
She ceased became a victim when she didn't do anything about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 19:35:58
3000
4000 
