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.
Breotan wrote: Hillary was working to destroy the reputations of those women who accused Bill of infidelity.
And here it is again. That same repeated statement, and same as all the other times there's still no substance attached. No quote of something Clinton said about any woman who claimed an affair with Bill Clinton. Not even a summary or explanation of a thing Clinton did to harm the reputation of any one of these women. Just the accusation repeated again.
So I'll ask again, for maybe the 10th time in this thread - please give an actual example of a thing Clinton said or did to one of the women to substantiate the claim or concede that the claim is bs.
I'll start with the mild stuff. Here is an interview with Sam Donaldson where she talks dismissively about Jennifer Flowers as part of her effort to build up Bill during his run for President. It provides a glimpse into how dedicated she is in defending her husband in support of their political ambitions.
For more meat, here's a Frontline video with people at the time including Carl Bernstein discussing Bill's affairs and Hillary's ambitions. Bill bold-face lied about Jennifer Flowers in a 60-minutes interview and Hillary defended him in that interview even though she knew about the affair. She's in full enabling mode here. “Again and again, she was willing and able emotionally to step into the breach and protect her husband,” - Robert Reich.
Here's a report from CNN about the claim of Hillary calling Monica Lewinsky a narcissistic loony toon.
Here's an article in The Atlantic discussing her efforts in disparaging Bill's accusers and why she won't pay a price for doing it.
Carl Bernstein wrote a book, "A Woman in Charge" which details Hillary's efforts to protect her husband and disparaging his accusers, especially Jennifer Flowers.
The list goes on and I haven't even touched on the interviews of the women making the accusations and what they say about Hillary.
If you're a Hillary fan, fine, but please stop pretending she's just a loving wife who got blindsided (over and over again) by a cheating husband and had no involvement in how the scandals were dealt with.
Damnit, I could have been playing World of Warcraft instead of screwing around in the OT. My fault for letting myself get suckered into another drawn out debate. I've said my peace so I think I'll take a day or two off and let others drive the discussion for a bit. I just upgraded my graphics card and am loving how Legion looks on a GTX 1070.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 07:43:22
I don't think I've seen anyone say that Hilary is a good person, or a good presidential candidate.
It seems like she'll be a fairly dull president, doing more of the same, and that's stable in a fairly ineffective way.
Trump seems to be a total wildcard, who's only redeeming feature seems to be that no-one will take him seriously.
The intelligence chief came out and stated that both candidates were briefed that it was Russians doing the hacking from government servers. Trump is, like usual, lying out his behind.
It's possible, but unlikely, that he just didn't believe the intelligence briefing.
Or that he just didn't understand it.
I'm not saying that makes him a good candidate though
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 08:27:47
An alarming number of people who claim to be "pro-constitution" and want "constitutional lawyers" only really care about one tiny section of the constitution. And if that one section was to be legally removed, they would be the first to say "feth the constitution" and ignore the change.
whembly wrote: I'm surprised there isn't more outcry of the DNC hacks...
Here... we have foreign actors trying to influence our elections.
Regardless of your political leanings... this should piss you off.
It does piss me off. Trumps call for the Russian Federation to hack even more was infuriating, astonishing, indeed treasonous IMHO. And Trump's connections to Russia and his admiration for Putin I've said numerous times is the #1 reason no-one should vote for him. I've been pounding he keyboard over this since Page 1 of this iteration of the US politics thread. Even been accused of "eternal hatred of the Russian" over it.
Good.
Man... it was some ancient time ago that this guy said that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe:
Spoiler:
The thing is, Russia doesn't have to be our foe. In fact, you want to know one of the reasons why they're our foe? Because the GOP has told you they are, because having a boogeyman has always been useful for politics, because when a big chunk of the US government keeps saying you are the enemy and won't treat you fairly, what reason do you have to be friends?. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are now if we actually engaged with Russia, rather than having an entire political party continually trash them. Maybe if we realized that the rest of the world could live without us, but we cannot live without the rest of the world, things might be just a tiny bit better and large swaths of the world wouldn't hate us as much. Because, yes, the GOP is playing the 21st century with the 1980s handbook. Because people are talking about what kind of response we should have for the hacks, how proportionate it should be, etc. You know what response we should have? IMPROVE OUR OWN FETHING SECURITY SO IT STOPS HAPPENING!
It was a Democrat that sent US troops to Korea. It was a Democrat that nearly started a nuclear war in 1962. It was a Democrat that started and escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The thing is, Russia doesn't have to be our foe. In fact, you want to know one of the reasons why they're our foe? Because the GOP has told you they are, because having a boogeyman has always been useful for politics, because when a big chunk of the US government keeps saying you are the enemy and won't treat you fairly, what reason do you have to be friends?. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are now if we actually engaged with Russia, rather than having an entire political party continually trash them.
What? Russia has engaged in wars of expansion in breach of international law. They have recently committed war crimes in order to dismantle peace deals so that their man in Syria can resume killing civilian populations loyal to the resistance. Russia should be actively and aggressively opposed as long as they continue to be a negative actor on the world stage.
This doesn't mean forever war against Russia, of course, and they should always be given opportunity and reason to change their behaviour and return to the international community. But their current status has nothing to do with Republican doctrine or Obama decisions, and everything to do with Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.
.
Aaaaand, you completely missed the point. The point being that things didn't have to get this far, if we actually cared about trying international diplomacy rather than just building up political boogeymen to scare the voters with.
"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
Ouze wrote: TFW we're talking about the 21st century GOP and you refute with conflicts of which the freshest ended 43 years ago.
I am not seeing where the US went to war with Russia outside of units being clandestinely involved in Korea.
I guess I should add:
Nixon-left Vietnam.
Carter-actions against USSR after Afghanistan.
Prior to the neo-cons the Republicans were decided non-war. The current neo-cons seem to now exist in the Clinton administration, considering she wants to force a no fly zone against Russia which is effectively an act of war, something a major power hasn't done against another major power since WWII.
Breotan wrote: Given the chance, Hillary will push SCOTUS left and I oppose that.
And what makes you think that Trump is any better? He's explicitly in favor of taking away first/fourth/fifth amendment rights (his "security" plans against Muslims), explicitly wants to overturn the 14th amendment and strip citizenship from people he doesn't like (children of illegal immigrants), and seems pretty solidly in favor of a "I am president, everyone does what I tell them to do" approach to executive power where legal limits are mere obstacles to be overcome. Given the established history of democrats going with a "talk a lot but never actually do anything" approach to gun control it seems that the only "rights" Trump would be interested in protecting in his nominations that Clinton wouldn't also protect would be the "right" to reject gay marriage and ban abortion.
That is even without bringing up his VP and his views and the things he did in his own home state.
have you considered putting him in a home or something ?
One recalls hearing that there's some marvelous big farms full of happy, "retired" former pets just upstate or something.
..damn those liberals and their bizarre beliefs........
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 12:41:08
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I don't think you actually read that article from The Atlantic, did you? I mean, it's filled with stuff like this:
Without endorsing any of Hillary Clinton's behavior, or minimizing any unfairness experienced by her husband's sex partners or alleged victims, it seems to me that asking a man or woman to react rationally and sympathetically to a person just as they're revealed to be having an affair with their spouse, or accusing their spouse of a crime, is to demand superhuman self-control and circumspection. Few could do it. In the first case, who wouldn't deeply resent a spouse's cheating partner, and be inclined to see them in the most unfavorable light? In the latter case, who wouldn't believe that their spouse was being wrongly accused, especially if the spouse really did have powerful enemies trying to destroy him?
And this:
Then there's the fact that it isn't clear how any of this would bear on her performance as president. Lots of her traits are worrisome: Her record suggests she'd be an unapologetic hawk who can't distinguish between a prudent intervention and a historic folly, and who would casually violate civil liberties. But her bygone reaction to her husband's accusers don't bear on her future. Those who want to cite it as an insight into her character should reflect on whether someone's true character is best judged by how they react to the intern giving their spouse oral sex.
All that article did was talk about what other people wrote and put it into context; not really the best choice to build up your case.
If you're a Hillary fan, fine, but please stop pretending she's just a loving wife who got blindsided (over and over again) by a cheating husband and had no involvement in how the scandals were dealt with.
I'm also going to assume that you don't personally know anyone that's gone through having an adulterous spouse either. I have a friend going through it right now and it isn't pretty and it makes her behavior make a lot of sense. My friend's husband had an affair on her (not the first time either and she hasn't really accepted that) and she did everything she could to ruin the other girl's life, including making her lose her job as a teacher by getting personnel involved (her husband was the woman's mentor at the school they worked in). I think that was wrong of her to do but I understand it and I don't think she was "enabling" her husband.
Damnit, I could have been playing World of Warcraft instead of screwing around in the OT. My fault for letting myself get suckered into another drawn out debate. I've said my peace so I think I'll take a day or two off and let others drive the discussion for a bit. I just upgraded my graphics card and am loving how Legion looks on a GTX 1070.
I just built a new rig and put a 1070 in it and it's amazing. Of course, I was coming from an almost seven year old GTX 260 so nearly anything would look better! I'm also impressed in how beautiful Blizzard has made WoW within the last few years, especially the Legion zones.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
have you considered putting him in a home or something ?
One recalls hearing that there's some marvelous big farms full of happy, "retired" former pets just upstate or something.
..damn those liberals and their bizarre beliefs........
He may be going senile in his old age.
Remember when he said the United States didn’t have “any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S.” in the eight years prior to President Barack Obama taking office. I guess he forgot about 9/11.
Forget American politics, and head over to the UK politics thread - another referendum and another constitutional crisis is on the cards...
I like American politics, but I'm afraid that BREXIT has well and truly stolen the thunder of the US election. And Hilary was always going to win anyway...
The UK's where it's all happening baby!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
“I don't necessarily agree with his victims, his victims are terrible,” Trump said. “He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position.”
“The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group. I'm not just talking about physical," he said.
“Would it be any different if it were a supermodel crowd?” Cavuto then asked.
“I think at least it would be more pleasant to watch,” Trump replied.
have you considered putting him in a home or something ?
One recalls hearing that there's some marvelous big farms full of happy, "retired" former pets just upstate or something.
..damn those liberals and their bizarre beliefs........
He may be going senile in his old age.
Remember when he said the United States didn’t have “any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S.” in the eight years prior to President Barack Obama taking office. I guess he forgot about 9/11.
have you considered putting him in a home or something ?
One recalls hearing that there's some marvelous big farms full of happy, "retired" former pets just upstate or something.
..damn those liberals and their bizarre beliefs........
He may be going senile in his old age.
Remember when he said the United States didn’t have “any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S.” in the eight years prior to President Barack Obama taking office. I guess he forgot about 9/11.
Next he'll forget about Dre.
Mr. Dre? Mr. N.W.A.? Mr. AK comin' straight outta Compton y'all better make way?
I am tired of the old Chestnut that Hillary Clinton was enabling Bill Clinton. What does that mean? He is a grown man that makes his own decisions. It was his choice to be unfaithful. Why the heck would it be her fault?
And attacking his accusers is not enabling; it's trying to protect your family. It might not be right, but please stop calling it enabling. He made the choice to cheat . She made the choice to try to salvage and defend her marriage.
Heck, if she divorced Bill after one of his affairs, she would be called unloyal. She can't win.
Still waiting for an explanation of this idea that Trump is somehow better because of his supreme court picks:
And what makes you think that Trump is any better? He's explicitly in favor of taking away first/fourth/fifth amendment rights (his "security" plans against Muslims), explicitly wants to overturn the 14th amendment and strip citizenship from people he doesn't like (children of illegal immigrants), and seems pretty solidly in favor of a "I am president, everyone does what I tell them to do" approach to executive power where legal limits are mere obstacles to be overcome. Given the established history of democrats going with a "talk a lot but never actually do anything" approach to gun control it seems that the only "rights" Trump would be interested in protecting in his nominations that Clinton wouldn't also protect would be the "right" to reject gay marriage and ban abortion.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
AdeptSister wrote: I am tired of the old Chestnut that Hillary Clinton was enabling Bill Clinton. What does that mean? He is a grown man that makes his own decisions. It was his choice to be unfaithful. Why the heck would it be her fault?
And attacking his accusers is not enabling; it's trying to protect your family. It might not be right, but please stop calling it enabling. He made the choice to cheat . She made the choice to try to salvage and defend her marriage.
Heck, if she divorced Bill after one of his affairs, she would be called unloyal. She can't win.
It is just a political attack, not based in reality. You have to understand that a large portion of the population has been conditioned to hate HRC as an unethical, narcissistic liar wannabe despot who hates American values. Any fodder to support that, not matter how bizarre or untrue, is acceptable. The result is that these same people then support an unethical, narcisstic liar who seems to want to dismantle everything America stands for in favor of a strongman despotism. It's amazing, really.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forget American politics, and head over to the UK politics thread - another referendum and another constitutional crisis is on the cards...
I like American politics, but I'm afraid that BREXIT has well and truly stolen the thunder of the US election. And Hilary was always going to win anyway...
The UK's where it's all happening baby!
Oh, I've been watching and it's going to get so much worse, I fear. I think your currency is in for another punch in the face again as well...close to parity with US$ eventually, methinks.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forget American politics, and head over to the UK politics thread - another referendum and another constitutional crisis is on the cards...
I like American politics, but I'm afraid that BREXIT has well and truly stolen the thunder of the US election. And Hilary was always going to win anyway...
The UK's where it's all happening baby!
Oh, I've been watching and it's going to get so much worse, I fear. I think your currency is in for another punch in the face again as well...close to parity with US$ eventually, methinks.
As long as the Pound drops before the Dollar drops I am fine with that, means more forgeworld for me.
BigWaaagh wrote: Oh, I've been watching and it's going to get so much worse, I fear. I think your currency is in for another punch in the face again as well...close to parity with US$ eventually, methinks.
By an amazing coincidence, this group is the same group that the Saudis are having trouble with, Saudi Arabia being a very close US ally as we know...
This won't be another Gulf of Tonkin incident, will it?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Tannhauser42 wrote: The thing is, Russia doesn't have to be our foe. In fact, you want to know one of the reasons why they're our foe? Because the GOP has told you they are, because having a boogeyman has always been useful for politics, because when a big chunk of the US government keeps saying you are the enemy and won't treat you fairly, what reason do you have to be friends?. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are now if we actually engaged with Russia, rather than having an entire political party continually trash them.
What? Russia has engaged in wars of expansion in breach of international law. They have recently committed war crimes in order to dismantle peace deals so that their man in Syria can resume killing civilian populations loyal to the resistance. Russia should be actively and aggressively opposed as long as they continue to be a negative actor on the world stage.
This doesn't mean forever war against Russia, of course, and they should always be given opportunity and reason to change their behaviour and return to the international community. But their current status has nothing to do with Republican doctrine or Obama decisions, and everything to do with Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.
.
Aaaaand, you completely missed the point. The point being that things didn't have to get this far, if we actually cared about trying international diplomacy rather than just building up political boogeymen to scare the voters with.
To be frank I am with Sebster on this point.
Russia has engaged in a series of international military affairs including the "anti-terrorist" war in Grozny, the annexation of the Crimea, shooting down a passenger jet, and the war crime of bombing a humanitarian aid convoy in Syria, as well as supporting the war crimes of the Syrian government.
On top of that are the cyber incursions of the US political process, intended to bias the election result in Russia's favour.
There is also the mysterious murder of a Russian journalist in London by the use of radioactive Polonium.
We could also look at Russian internal affairs, which are their own business until they infringe on human rights, such as freedom of sexuality (the current repression of homosexuals.)
Let's not kid ourselves that the Russians are just mis-understood OK Guys that our government is setting up for a bogeyman. We've got a real bogeyman in the form of ISIL and the GWoT to worry about already.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: I am tired of the old Chestnut that Hillary Clinton was enabling Bill Clinton. What does that mean? He is a grown man that makes his own decisions. It was his choice to be unfaithful. Why the heck would it be her fault?
And attacking his accusers is not enabling; it's trying to protect your family. It might not be right, but please stop calling it enabling. He made the choice to cheat . She made the choice to try to salvage and defend her marriage.
Heck, if she divorced Bill after one of his affairs, she would be called unloyal. She can't win.
I wonder who enabled Trump to get three wives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 16:49:22
3000
4000 
