Every time I try to be receptive to Clinton -- She does something awful like the 9-11 thing

[Armstead]

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm trying to get my head around the possibility of Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Partly a matter of self-preservation, so as not to get so listless and depressed about her as President that I just tune the whole GE campaign out.

But everytime I get to a point of "Well, she's not so bad I guess" she pulls another of her offensive, tone-deaf moves.

The 9-11 thing did it again. It epitomized everything about her that grates.

She would have been much more worthy of respect if she had actually engaged in the issue of her Wall St. support and ties honestly when it came up during the debate. "Yes I have relationships with the financial sector, because they are an important segment of the economy, and we have to work within that system to improve it for everyone..."

One could honestly disagree, but at least it would have been worthy of respect as an answer.

But instead she insulted people's intelligence with a dishonest deflection from the issue.

First of all, her trumped up, self-righteous anger was clearly an act. Bernie's statements were not some surprise sneak attack. It's been a theme of this campaign season from the beginning. If she was honestly get angry and saw it as a "surprise attack" by Sanders -- rather than knowing it was going to be mentioned -- would mean that she is really unaware. And she is not unaware.

But what was worse that she pulled a Bush/Guilinani move and gratuitously used 9-11 as a reason for her Wall St ties. That was unforgivable pandering, and an attempt to short circuit honest debate with lizard-brained fear and "patriotism." And do do it on the day after Paris to exploit people's heightened sensitivity to terrorism -- that took it to a new low.

(She also threw in the gender card while she was at it, but okay.)

Once would be a slip up. But she does this stuff consistently.

[merrily]

1. noun verb, 911 woman

[Jester Messiah]

9. And they say she's not Repub-lite.

[marym625]

100. check out the video in reply 99

I didn't put it together but it's Hillaryous

[cui bono]

106. Or as I like to say... War, gender and 9/11

Yikes.

[ibegurpard]

2. And then going after the Twitter guy

Who brought it up...

[99th_Monkey]

5. The Twitter guy offered to "take it back"

for 10% of her Wall St. donations.

[Armstead]

6. The Twitter guy spoke for many

As soon as she said it I went "arrrrghgghhhhh"

[jeff47]

3. And it's all the fault of the person on twitter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251816597

Seriously, she's supposed to be so well-qualified and ready to go and "face down our enemies", yet now her campaign says she can't handle one tweet?

[Jarqui]

4. Fun link for additional perspective on that

https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal

[grasswire]

101. WOW

Now, THAT is how to get some traction.

Doesn't hurt that he's a Yalie too.

[cui bono]

107. Law professor!

Now that is awesome.

[72DejaVu]

16. Did they say that?

Seems like an odd thing to say.

Could you point me towards a quote.

No, of course you can't.

[jeff47]

18. Yes, they did say that.

As for quote, you do realize that summaries by third parties are not quotes, right?

That's why I included a link to the story. So you could go read the lengthy word salad if you want to find out exactly what Clinton's campaign said.

If it's mischaracterized by the summary, then you could bring back how it's mischaracterized and a discussion could ensue.

Instead, you've decided to post the equivalent of "Nuh Uh!!!!". (Hey look! Another summary!! The HORROR!!!!)

[72DejaVu]

19. They said "Hilary can't handle one tweet"?

I'm not seeing it. I'm sure it must be there, though, as no one who supports Bernie would ever twist things even a teensy weeny bit.

[jeff47]

20. Guess I'll just cut-and-paste my last reply, since you didn't read it the first time.

As for quote, you do realize that summaries by third parties are not quotes, right?

That's why I included a link to the story. So you could go read the lengthy word salad if you want to find out exactly what Clinton's campaign said.

If it's mischaracterized by the summary, then you could bring back how it's mischaracterized and a discussion could ensue.

Instead, you've decided to post the equivalent of "Nuh Uh!!!!". (Hey look! Another summary!! The HORROR!!!!)

[72DejaVu]

23. So we can argue all afternoon about why your mischaracterization isn't a mischaracterization?

Naw, I'd rather just snark. It's better for my blood pressure.

[jeff47]

24. Well, if quotes are so important, one would think you could find one that shows

it's a mischaracterization. Especially when you don't have to go searching for the statements by Clinton's campaign.

Yet you're not doing that. So odd when it's so easy for you to prove. Almost like you wanted to attack the messenger instead of talking about the actual statements...

[72DejaVu]

25. I admire your persistence

It's an admirable trait to have at any time, but particularly when your candidate is 20 points down and fading.

[Ed Suspicious]

33. My dad is bigger than your dad. What a horseshit answer.

[d_legendary1]

56. She responded to that tweet

"Well, I'm sorry that whoever tweeted that had that impression because I worked closely with New Yorkers after 9/11 for my entire first term to rebuild. So, yes, I did know people. I've had a lot of folks give me donations from all kinds of backgrounds say, I don't agree with you on everything, but I like what you do. I like how you stand up. I'm going to support you, and I think that is absolutely appropriate."

Full transcript right here!

And that person was not alone in asking when she answered the way she did.

[72DejaVu]

60. So she did "handle" the tweet

And the claim that she could not are false.

Thanks!

[d_legendary1]

64. If by "handle" you mean give another 9/11 answer

then yeah she did.

[DirkGently]

7. Yes. She could have argued in good faith.

After all, no one wants the financial sector destroyed or anything. We want it to stop playing craps with the world economy. Reasonable people may differ as to how to go about that.

But "9/11" is simply not why Wall Street supports Ms. Clinton.

There's just one catch: Clinton represented New York during that period because she won election in 2000. And even then, before 9/11, she got a lot of money from Wall Street.

The Center for Responsive Politics identifies the top 20 employers that gave to Clinton during that cycle. At the top of the list is Citigroup, whose employees gave a combined $105,900 to Clinton well before 9/11. (Citigroup's PAC gave an additional $2,000.) No. 4 on the list is Goldman Sachs, whose employees gave nearly $89,000. No. 8 is the financial services company UBS. No. 10? Chase. In total, the center calculates that Clinton took in nearly $1.2 million from the "securities and investment" industry between 1999 and 2002.

Clinton's 2000 campaign filing from the FEC reveals 44 donations from Citigroup, 54 from Goldman, 36 from Paine Webber, 43 from Deloitte, 21 from Credit Suisse and 18 from Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. There are a number of other financial firms that appear in the list; these are just the most frequent donors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/16/wall-street-loved-hillary-clinton-before-911-too/

[Hepburn]

8. The more I see of her...

...the more she turns me off.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. I try not to see her or listen to her. I don't trust her to

be on the side of us non rich.

[AlbertCat]

39. This ^

Again.... Imagine if there were more debates....when people would watch them.

[deutsey]

10. From the beginning of the primaries I've said I would vote for Hillary if she's the nominee

I haven't changed my mind, but she and a few of her supporters here are doing an excellent job of making me reconsider.

[Hepburn]

11. Ditto. n/t

[Armstead]

17. Well she's still better than a Republican.....I guess.

(damning with faint praise)

[MisterP]

43. it doesn't matter if every DUer brings 5 people to the polls for her, she'd still lose

because she has no pull outside the party and people will greet every promise with "it's just hot air to get votes and then it's back to selling us out"

and they'd be right!

so they hold that "Sanders supporters" owe their votes to the party because they'd backed a Dem candidate, but what they would've wanted is someone who's not Grandstanding Job-Slashing Pol #4218 and so they'll just stay home or vote Pub because their great-grandfather did: they'll go from caring to not, from thinking about politics to just being forced to accept one of two pre-prepared choices

[Yurovsky]

63. You're free to do as you are told!

if Hillary's dirty corporate money buys the nomination, I will not be voting for her.

If she gives that dirty money back and puts Wall Street on notice that they'll be public enemy #1 when she takes office, fine, she'll get my vote. I want to vote for a progressive who'll fight for the poor & working class, not some greedy corporate huckster who'll protect the 1% from having to pay their fair share.

She doesn't get my vote by default, and all of my progressive friends and family members feel the same way. Hopefully the voters of NH & Iowa can help put Bernie on track for the nomination, and overcome Hillary's dirty corporate money and the bias of the DNC towards more DLC nonsense.

[MisterP]

76. that's why the DLCers can't win with a real Dem around: they've run the party with Ratched-like

threats ("if you don't clap hard enough, the Republicans will win!&quot , swarms of galling cultists and principle-free flacks ("you're just not appreciative of how glorious a leader we have!" "he didn't say the TORTURERS were 'working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots,' he just decried torture and then praised a vaguer group without bothering to change the grammatical object&quot , by breaking promises and logrolling and backscratching (i.e., passing the selfsame GOP policies that were so awful we should be flogged if our nonvoting "gets the Pubs in&quot , by setting up a "veal pen" to make sure nothing that the American people want and need gets passed, by condemning gay marriage until the day the polls shift, by blaming the voters every single bloody time they lose, by saying any criticism is bad because it'll lose the election and then repeatedly torpedoing elections if the candidate's too populist, the old mudslinging, invoking 9-11, starting wars and patting themselves on the back for it, willingness to sell their own parents to climb the ladder, and so on

without Sanders, voting is just a little song-and-dance to legitimate the political stratum, not to let the people represent themselves: to them We the People are like a baby with a lighter, and an adult has to scoop us up or swat it out of our hands before we hurt ourselves

this all breeds ginormous resentment against the political class, their $225,000 speeches, their $33,000 dinners, their laws that send jobs overseas to give foreign poor people a foreign poor person's wages and pocketing the difference, their sky-high utopian promises and fence-sitting and protean vagueness to pander for votes and money, and their absolute and utter insincerity is what's let anti-elitist right-wing populism flourish, riding the dying middle class killed off by the policies of a duopolistic elite that tells us every day that we've never had it so good

if the same-old-same-old candidates win the primaries, everyone's just gonna go back to bed, ignoring their masters blaming the public for what the masters do

[zentrum]

30. I know what you mean.

But, we gotta vote for her if she's it, regardless of the behavior of her supporters here. It will be a sickening day for me and I actually fear her as a president. But I fear a Repub more.

It will be both a lesser of two evils and lesser of two fears vote for me. The party is in trouble in my view. We should have had a deeper primary bench.

[Darb]

65. Don't alert on me Bro*, but right back at ya!

Pot meets kettle again in Bernieville.

[deutsey]

67. Couldn't care any less than I do

And I don't alert on anyone who isn't an obvious troll (although I did have to deliberate here).

In an unrelated aside, I just thought you'd like to know this is probably my favorite scene from Easy Rider:



Classic moment, wouldn't you agree?

[Darb]

69. Don't alert on me Bro*, but you don't really act like

someone who is a legitimate supporter of a decent man like Bernie. You seem more like a Paul person. Why is that?




* - Designates trigger warning for points of view known to make some partisans squeal like stuck hogs.

[guillaumeb]

75. I was number seven:

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Really? We're still accusing Bernie supporters of secretly supporting Rand Paul? And this poster behaves like a troll anyway.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 16, 2015, 12:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The conspiracy to silence Clinton supporters lives on
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks make DU suck.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sniping, but didn't get my feathers ruffled.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: GD is like The Lounge -- a place for children to play. If we actually started hiding posts, the group would be empty and the children would take it into the Living Room with the adults.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Where is the offense here?

[Darb]

79. Notice that I didn't alert one their having

basically given me the finger. That means "fuck you" right? I guess those of us who like Bernie but so far are supporting Hillary and call out the ridiculous stuff must have more mettle.

I have pretty much had enough of the Berners. They are more delicate than the NRA crowd.

Thanks for the leave it alone. Juror one sure missed the mark.

[Sunlei]

12. She happened to be a Senator in New York State when 9-11 happened. Her duty was to work /w

'the people effected", all the devastation to our economy caused by that attack on "Trade" complex and wall street is part of that state & part of the destroyed "Trade" buildings.

[Hepburn]

13. So this explains all of the donations from Wall Street to

her senatorial campaign in 2000? Either they knew 911 was coming or they knew Hillary was on their side.

Which is it?

[Sunlei]

15. Bush knew, but I do not think Mrs. Clinton was in Bushes circle,do U?Mrs. Clinton in 2002, to media.

"It's the job of a senator to ask questions on the minds of his or her constituents," Clinton said through spokesman Philippe Reines. "And nobody is more entitled to answers about what happened on 9/11 than the people of New York."

"Sen. Clinton believed, and believes to this day, that we must ask the hard questions about what happened on Sept. 11," he added.

Mrs. Clinton was reacting to reports that President Bush thought her earlier comments suggesting he had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks were "irresponsible." Bush's reaction to Clinton's remarks is revealed for the first time in a new book by Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon, "Fighting Back."

In a May 16 speech on the Senate floor Mrs. Clinton had complained:

"I am simply here today on the floor of this hallowed chamber to seek answers to the questions being asked by my constituents, questions raised by one of our newspapers in New York with the headline 'Bush Knew.'...

"The president knew what? My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American but just to know, to learn from experience, to do all we can today to ensure that a 9/11 never happens again."

Responding to reports that Bush had received an August 2001 CIA briefing on plans by al Qaeda to hijack airliners, Clinton even went so far as to raise questions about a possible White House cover-up.

"Why (do) we know today, May 16, about the warning he received. Why did we not know this on April 16 or March 16 or February or Jan. 16 or Aug. 16 of last year?," she complained.

Hours later Sen. Clinton told reporters, "Clearly the public demands answers immediately. The people of New York deserve those answers more than anyone. I believe that getting the facts out would be the very best response to this troubling news."

[Hepburn]

21. Try again...

...2002 is AFTER 9/11. Please respond to her big bank donations in 2000. Hint: 2000 was BEFORE 9/11.

[Betty Karlson]

14. I might just stop trying to be receptive to Clinton.

Just to save myself from an overdose of disappointment.

She's 1%. She's a DINO. She's a follower. Not a leader.

[Ino]

22. It creeps me out...

the way she always turns and stares at whoever is talking.

[ejbr]

28. I hope that is not the only reason she concerns you

[Mike__M]

58. Yeah, that's pretty close to

praising with faint damnation.

[Ino]

61. Oh no, LOL

That's the only reason she creeps me out. There are a lot of reasons she concerns me

It reminds me of what Gore did to Bush in the debate... some kind of psychological intimidation thingie...

I keep wishing O'Malley or Sanders would look over at her and nod.

[ejbr]

83. Ha!

Forgot about that!

[grasswire]

105. LOL

It creeps ME out when I can see her blood pressure rising when someone dares to question her closely.

[99Forever]

26. And then there's that awful moment...

..when you realize that those things you are trying to let slide about a candidate so you can support them, are actually what that candidate is about.

[Armstead]

32. I'm trying to avoid that moment

but it keeps tapping me on the shoulder.

[Demeter]

27. Bargaining down to $12/hour is another clanger

I liked this poster:

[Ed Suspicious]

34. I love the message but hate the picture.

[Scuba]

108. Starting at $12 means bargaining down to a lower figure. Probably $7.25; maybe less.

[Demeter]

109. It's currently $7.25, and has been for 45 years

[Scuba]

116. Maybe that's why Hillary is thought of as the "status quo" candidate.

[Martin Eden]

29. "She insulted people's intelligence with a dishonest deflection from the issue."

Exactly.

To alleviate concerns about her ties to Wall Street, she really needs to explain why those campaign contributions won't influence her decision making on reforms that have been consistaently opposed by those big cash donors.

On the related 9/11 issue of using military force, she has exacerbated my concerns -- still very much a hawk.

[Android3.14]

31. Totally agree

I try on occasion to tell myself to ignore all the warning signs of her compromised soul and give her a chance, but then she pulls bonehead moves that just reinforce the fact that she is antithetical to Democratic Party values, democracy in general, and will allow the worst elements of our society to continue to prey on us as if Clinton sees us as little more than domesticated livestock.

[riversedge]

35. What Republicans Said in Private About Hillary’s Post-9/11 Recovery Work

Here is another perspective.

http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/what-republicans-said-about-hillarys-post-911-recovery-work?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork


What Republicans Said in Private About Hillary’s Post-9/11 Recovery Work


November 15, 2015
ANALYSIS

By Peter Daou and Tom Watson


............I was working as a consultant, and our firm was involved on a pro bono basis in various aspects of serving the families of the uniformed personnel killed at the Twin Towers. It was an emotional, grinding, exhausting time and in comparison to the sacrifice of those who literally gave their lives for fellow New Yorkers that day, our contribution was minimal and in many ways, the very least we could do.

But I remember a meeting of officials late one evening. All Republicans – and if you recall that era, the New York firmament was dominated by the GOP (though in retrospect, a far more liberal brand than their current successors). The meeting included commissioners and key political figures. Names you would know. They were talking politics. This former Bronx political reporter was listening silently (always the best method of journalism) as they turned to gossiping about their Democratic counterparts. Who, someone asked, has been the biggest surprise?

“Hillary.”

“Really, why?”

“She just works. She’s not trying to get into the photo. She’s completely briefed and knows the details.”

“That surprises me.”

“Also, she’s great with the families. She takes time. She’s not like she is on TV.”

The moment stuck with me. Indeed, up until that conversation I probably retained the same one-dimensional view of Hillary as many Democratic males of my generation. A few months later when I met Hillary at an event related to that discussion, it confirmed the loosened-tie late night views of those Republican men and their off the record impression. And frankly, it started me on the path to supporting Hillary in 2008 and co-founding #HillaryMen with Peter this cycle.

So when I see Hillary’s words misinterpreted or cynically twisted for mentioning – briefly, accurately and without grandstanding – her role in those months after 9/11, it sends my own red flag flying, because my memory of that time is still so vivid.

[Armstead]

37. Not denying she did well in handling 9-11....That's not the point

The point is it had NOTHING to do with the subject during the debate.

Bush and Guiliani did some good things after 9-11 too, as did many politicians and other people.

But using that emotional hot button to steer the conversation away from a career-long affiliation with big money....Nope. Not acceptable. Especially not on the day after Paris.

[riversedge]

44. And you just involked the horrible incident in Paris to make YOUR point...

well done!!

..."But using that emotional hot button to steer the conversation away from a career-long affiliation with big money....Nope. Not acceptable. Especially not on the day after Paris."

[Armstead]

48. I "invoked" it because I found the timing offensive

I'm not running for President or writing campaign literature. Am expressing a personal opinion on a discussion board.

[riversedge]

51. No excuses--You invoked it to make a point. Period.

You will not excuse Hillary and I will not excuse you.

[Armstead]

53. Don't then. If you can't figure out the difference.....

between some unknown schmuck posting an honest opinion on a discussion board, and a presidential candidate in a debate, then you go on ahead and not excuse me.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

98. Make that two unknown schmucks! n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

114. Woob, woob, woob! n/t

[AlbertCat]

41. We know she's competent.

"She’s not like she is on TV."

God, let's hope so!


So plastic. So scripted.

[riversedge]

46. Your vile talking points have gone stale

[Nitram]

57. Riversedge, love your post above.

I think it's a shame that many Sanders supporters are so blinded by their enthusiasm for Bernie that they can't even consider that Clinton might be a very great deal more authentic, dedicated and experienced than they will give her credit for.

[Darb]

68. I am not certain that

they are legitimate Bernie Sanders supporters. I find it hard to believe that authentic supporters of a good, decent man like Bernie would act this way.

[Nitram]

71. I can't quite tell whether you post is sarcastic or not, Darb.

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

But I guess it has to be considering all the examples we have in the thread above.

[Darb]

74. Not sarcasm.

I challenge many "Bernie supporters" over their ridiculous claims and positions and talking points. The way they react to being questioned doesn't at all seem consistent with the way Bernie himself acts. I guess it is probably just a few bad apples....I hope. As you can probably tell, I get alerted on a lot. Sometimes deservedly so.

[riversedge]

72. Thank you for your kind words. I do hope all read it.

[AlbertCat]

78. I do hope all read it.

Yes we all read how you go after Sanders' supporters because one (me) thinks Hillary sounds scripted. I said she was competent too...should I not have included that? (notice, I said nothing about her supporters, We're not electing them.)

[Goblinmonger]

80. Makes me think of this gem from The Onion

I am fun.

I enjoy fun. I both have fun and can be fun. Fun is a word that accurately describes me and a large quantity of things of which I am fond. I appreciate fun when I encounter it, and I have even been known to partake in activities that produce fun for myself and others. Fun is something I often have when amongst a group of people. In such situations, I am capable of amusing others and, in turn, of being amused by them.

Thus, I am a fun person.

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to provide an example of a fun thing I do. I take part in levity. I enjoy jokes, which are fun. When the occasion presents itself, I have been known to make jokes of my own, thereby creating fun for those around me. This is because, like many other people I encounter, I have a sense of humor. A sense of humor is crucial to having fun and to being fun. When situations are humorous, I signal my recognition of the fun by laughing, just as you do. Just as most people do.

Full story

I'm sure Clinton is very personable in person. Her public persona comes off very differently. Clearly, you and I are not the only ones to think so.

[Beacool]

47. Hillary is a great person.

Frankly, I don't give a flying fig what people here think of her. It's a waste of time. They can't wait to find her in a "gotcha" moment. The Hillary I know is warm, funny and very intelligent. She's also one of the hardest working people I've ever met. She commits 100%.

When she entered the Senate some of the Republican senators cringed to think that they would have to work with her. I remember Trent Lott hoping that "lightning would strike". These senators were some of the people who worked to impeach her husband. In time she won them over with her hard work and by not hogging the limelight. She became one of the most sought after senators by her colleagues, they all wanted her to co-sponsor bills with them. It was not only her name recognition that they were after, it was also because they knew that she would by one of the best prepared senators at any meeting and hearing.

We could do a lot worse than Hillary for president.

[Armstead]

50. No, as I said in the OP....I've been hoping to not hear any "gotcha moments"

I'm not doubting her competence, or that she may be an okay person on a personal level, or in some other public context.

But on the issues, as a presidential candidate, I dislike it intensely when she deflects from the serious, honest consideration with a cheap parlor trick, it makes it hard to give her the benefit of the doubt, because it's hard to know where she actually stands.

[Rilgin]

89. So in other words

It does not matter that she voted for war. Has supported and advocated for warlike responses and bombings in the Middle East. It does not matter her past positions on Same Sex Marriage or on a host of economic interests from Keystone to the PPP, someone told you she was a nice private person and you liked her when you met her once.

I am sure she is a nice person. I find, with some exceptions, people with hundreds of millions in the bank generally can be very nice and express concern for others. I am also pretty sure she is smart and competent. However, she is also ambitious beyond all measures including running another race for president when it was a guarantee that she would not have enthusiastic support throughout the democratic party because of her past votes. Most authentic public servant politicians who vote so wrong on a war, try to redeem themselves by becoming statesmen and statewomen, they do not try to reward their ambitions by running for president again.

2008 when she was also annointed by the establishment and the media as the democratic candidate but lost when people actually had a chance to vote should have told her that she was not universally supported by democrats. Mostly cause of the war vote which Obama did not make. Instead of doing the right thing, she double downed on bad power money politics only to reward this ambition. In doing so she actually risks the democratic party losing the election to republicans.

Yes Bernie and OMalley have their own electoral issues but also have some favorable elements in this year -- mostly being not part of the establishment and neither voting for the Iraq War. However, if Hillary had not run or more importantly had not run on money and power, we might have had a more robust candidate slate with people with no issues. Since we do not, it might be good to not go with the candidate (Hillary) who both risks the election and has major policy warts.

[valerief]

38. Recently, someone told me he didn't like Hillary because after the Monica bullshit,

she stuck by her husband for political reasons. Here's our conversation:
Me: So what?
Him: Well, it shows her character.
Me: Fuck her character. I don't give a shit about her character. I'm old now. What's she gonna do for me or to me?
Him: Well, I can't trust her.
Me: You don't have to trust her. What does that mean anyway? She's not a best friend. All the Republican candidates want to "make changes" to Medicare and Social Security and that's code for they want to cut my benefits. The Democratic candidates don't want to do that. Well, Bernie wants to expand the benefits, and money that's given to the 99% gets circulated and generates more jobs. Most of the money that goes to the military industrial complex goes out of the country and does nothing for us but make life worse.
Him: But we need to make changes to Social Security. I'll never see it, but it's not fair some people want to take advantage of it, like drug addicts.
Me: Who gives a shit? Let's support all the junkies. They'll spend some of the money on drugs, but some will go to the local supermarket, too, and other local businesses. It's not like our military money isn't already investing in drugs. Look at the Afghanistan War, and the War on Drugs and its prison time and the offshoring of jobs keeps people in an addiction cycle.

Okay, the conversation veered from Hillary at this point, so I won't go on. Back to Hillary. She's as slick as Bill but lacks his charm, but guess what? I don't give a shit about that. I don't have to like her. I don't have to trust her. I won't let the media condition me to think that shit's important. I just have to compare what Hillary vs. Bernie says and how Hillary vs. Bernie has behaved/voted in the past. Critical thinking, not critical feeling.

I thought Obama said a lot of fluff stuff in his 2008 campaign and too much war shit, so I voted for Kucinich in the primary but voted for Obama in the general. I'm a Bernie voter in the primary but will do the same in 2016, if I have to. I didn't want to vote for Obama just because he's black and don't want to vote for Hillary just because she's female. It feels nice to vote that way, but I can't let my feelings get in the way of my survival. I'll vote in my best interest. I wish everyone did.

[Armstead]

42. I long ago figured that out...Not looking for a drinking buddy

But some things really hit the core of things, in a good or bad way. A willingness to pull the "terror card" to avoid talking about a legitimate political concern is one of them.

If it comes to it, yeah I'll pull the lever for Hillary over the GOP nominee just by process of elimination. But rather than any sense of positive contribution, it'll be like going to the dentist to prevent an impending toothache.

[valerief]

45. Same here. But Hillary pulling the terror card is all part of the bullshit

election game in this country. She's the conventional candidate using the conventional tools, and Bernie's the unconventional candidate using what appears to be the unconventional honesty tool. I can't fault Hillary for playing the stupid election game by the stupid election rules, but I can certainly admire Bernie for not playing the game by those rules.

Now, if Hillary was saying one tenth of the bullshit lies coming out of the mouths of the GOP candidates, that'd be another story, but she isn't. The GOP are in a league of their own when it comes to bullshit elections.

[Armstead]

49. I agree about the Republicans

But I can't stand it when we become like the Republicans.

[Punkingal]

40. One of the reasons she has difficultly with questions like this, IMO...

Is that she does not have core beliefs that are important enough to her to stick with...she blows with the wind, and the polls. I think she just wants to be elected as the first woman President, she feels entitled to it. I don't see her as sincere...so many times when she raises her voice in supposed passion it just seems contrived to me.

I wish I could feel differently, but I can't. Both my husband and I were watching the debate, and we were dumbfounded by her 9/11 comment....it perfectly illustrates who she is and how she thinks as far as I am concerned. It pushed me over the edge finally...I am out of the closet now...fully supporting Bernie, and I hope I don't have to vote for her in the GE, though I will if I have to. Sadly, I don't think she will win the GE. Republicans will turn out in droves to vote against her. Why we have to choose the most polarizing candidate I will never understand.

[Nitram]

52. Every time I try to be receptive to Sanders,

Clinton reminds me of her deep grasp of foreign policy, her lifelong relationship with labor and minority rights, and her knowledge of how government works.

[Armstead]

54. Fine. We're all entitled to our opinions

[Nitram]

59. Gee, thanks!

[Armstead]

62. You're welcome.

"Don't say I never gave you 'nuthin."

[CharlotteVale]

55. Throwing in the gender card made her sound even phonier to me.

[riversedge]

73. Hillary is proud of the fact that she has that many women donors. Why demean

a comment like that by tossing in the gender 'card" Sanders many times mentions his 'grassroot' donors" which he is proud of. I have never heard any Hillary supporter say 'the grassroot card"

[Armstead]

86. Because it had nothing to do with the subject at hand

Limiting your support to grassroots individual donors and not skirting the rules by condoning Pacs is relevant.

Gender is not in this context.

[riversedge]

87. The subject about her donors was brought up Sanders. Who her donors ARE IS important and

with the context of the statements made by Sanders. Gender is one of the factors of her important donors.

[Armstead]

90. We're splitting hairs here

The discussion was about the size and sources of financial support (directly and indirectly through PACS).

It would be equally irrelevant is Sanders were to say "and many of my donors are tall people" or something similar.

My main issue was the deflection to the 9-11 tall tale. The women one was a small one by comparison.

[riversedge]

92. And you are the one who invoked the Paris terror attack to make YOUR point!! Madam President

has the mojo.

Together we will SHATTER the glass ceiling with @HillaryClinton ! @HillaryforSC #ImWithHer
8:12 PM - 14 Nov 2015 · Myrtle Beach, SC, United States

[Armstead]

93. And I will invoke it again, just to piss you off, if you'd like

And I am all for the glass ceiling. And if women feel strongly enough to donate to Clinton because they believe she will do that, hey, fine by me.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that her campaign is designed to suck up as much support as possible from Wal, St. and Big Corporations as fuel for her efforts. And inevitably, the bill will come due.

[riversedge]

95. Do what you will--Iowa Dems don't care... “My God,” he added, “what’s the big deal?”

And remember--Hillary has surged Sanders in the polls in Iowa


In Iowa, Democratic activists not upset by Clinton’s Sept. 11 comments

By Philip Rucker November 15

.............the prevailing sentiment, at least among the Ames crowd, was that the controversy over her Sept. 11 comments was much ado about nothing.

"There's a logic to what she said when you think about it," Martha Anderson, 77, said of Clinton's remarks.

Asked whether she saw the Sept. 11 line as a "gaffe," Anderson, who has not settled on which Democrat to support, shrugged and said, "The pundits say that all the time. They always pick up on something that's going to haunt somebody. But pundits are who pundits are."

“She was the senator from New York and the entire country was attacked,” added Paul Fitzgerald, the Story County sheriff, who has not endorsed yet in the Democratic race.

“My God,” he added, “what’s the big deal?”

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/15/in-iowa-democratic-activists-not-upset-by-clintons-sept-11-comments/?postshare=9951447619547104&tid=ss tw

[Darb]

66. Don't alert on me Bro*, but what the fuck are you talking about?

What is this imaginary 9/11 thing you are stooping to? Can someone from Bernieland please explain this line of "thinking"?




* - Denotes trigger warning for upcoming spanking

[Armstead]

70. Did you watch the debate?

Read or seen any news the last day or two?

I'll be happy to explain if you didn't...or Google debate, Clinton, 911, wall st.

[Darb]

77. Don't alert on me Bro*, but all I've heard is ridiculous claims

that pretty much put words into her mouth. I was wondering what it is that rises to the level of "playing the 9/11 card to help Wall Street" or whatever the meme is? Any translation forthcoming?



* - denotes trigger warning for foul language and general contempt

[Armstead]

84. I have no intention of alerting on you

But I also am not going to explain something that seems patently obvious.

If you think she adequately explained her long association with Wall St. and Big Banks by attributing it to 9-11, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Schema Thing]

81. It was vomit inducing.

[riversedge]

88. The only thing that is vile is the OP making up something out of nothing.

[Armstead]

91. The New York Times and many other mainstream observers agree with the point of the OP

[Scootaloo]

104. No, exploiting 2,996 deaths to smokescreen for one's bank ties is vile.

Especially when you had previously already exploited those 2,996 dead people in order to justify killing another million or so.

[Darb]

82. Don't alert on me Bro*, but this is a shark jumping exercise,

for certain. I read what she said and you guys are all jumping the shark with these claims. It makes no sense. Back away from the ..............whatever it is.




* - Warning to the thin-skinned, toughen up.

[Armstead]

85. Okay, just us conspiracty theorists and the Editorial Board of the NY Times thought it inappropriate

..and many others.

[lovemydog]

94. I watched it and I'm not a Hillary supporter

in the primaries. It didn't bother me. Maybe it came off a little weird but I understood what she was saying. That during that crisis she worked with constituents from all walks of life.

[Bernblu]

96. Before worrying about being receptive to Clinton why don't you wait until the voters actually vote

to see if Clinton gets the nomination. You will have at least three months to decide whether to support her in the GE.

She is what she is - a candidate beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests. She has always been a third-way, neo-liberal Democrat. While she is better than the Republicans, she is no progressive when it comes to economic and trade issues no matter what she says in debates.

[Armstead]

97. I know that, but based on present evidence...

she is most likely to be the nominee.

I'll be thrilled if I'm wrong about that, but in any case I was mainly describing my reaction to that exchange

[marym625]

99. K&R!

Because. Vagina!




Ninnnnne ELEVEN!

https://video-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xft1/v/t42.1790-2/12240506_1001418803250383_1491773884_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjMwMCwicmxhIjo1MTIsInZlbmNvZGVfdGFnIjoic2QifQ%3D%3D&oh=545f82ac6a92d5f10b18f783fa5602c9&oe=564835E2

[sabrina 1]

102. You're not the only one, unfortunately.

[Chitown Kev]

103. Yeah

The 9-11 thing did it again. It epitomized everything about her that grates.

She would have been much more worthy of respect if she had actually engaged in the issue of her Wall St. support and ties honestly when it came up during the debate. "Yes I have relationships with the financial sector, because they are

Tackle the issue head on rather than ducking and dodging from it at put to rest to the extent that you can...that would be my advice to her.

Maybe its' the only way that the Clinton's know how to do politics. There's enough drama surrounding Hillary and she just creates more of it.

[bigwillq]

115. She's awful. Period. (Nt)

[treestar]

117. What's so awful about it?

Unless one has that irrational prejudice that "Wall Street" is full of bogeymen.

Hillary is no Giuliani, she does not say it all the time.

And she was a Senator from New York at the time, and did a lot to make sure there was help for NYC.

[Armstead]

118. Her handling of 9-11 was fine. She did what she should have.

But using that to deflect form the subject that was being discussing -- her longstanding ties to the Big Banks and Wall St. and Big Corporations that extended before 9-11 and continue to this day with her campaign, and the possible effects on her decisions if elected.

It was a manipulative response, it was designed to change the subject and the timing was horrible.

As I noted in the OP, it would have been much better if she had simply answered the question honestly and directly without bringing in 9-11.

[treestar]

119. What is so awful about he Big Banks and Wall Street and Big Corporations?

I just don't see that language resonating with most voters. Most people do not think of "Wall Street" as the root of all evil. The Twin Towers contained offices of Big Corporations, Big Banks, Big Law Firms, and Big Investment firms. In essence, "Wall Street." That's the kind of cognitive dissonance this calls for. The loss of jobs and economic activity due to 911 harmed "Wall Street." That was NOT a good thing. Not to most voters, anyway.

[Armstead]

120. 9-11 was a bad event. Of course it was. But that is not the subject.

The behavior of big investment houses and banks have been destructive to the overall health of the economy, the financial position of most Americans, and has undermined the morasl and ethical values of our nation.

I haven't the time to explain why. there is plenty of evidence readuily available (real news not just tin hat conspiracy theories).

Let's just say that in addition to the house of cards that collapsed in 2008, they have made companies into poker chips that are forced to behave in ways that undermine working people, consumers and steal money from the public sector.

People like Sanders warned of the consequences in the 90's, when those conditions were being put into place deliberately.

If you don't think that's a problem....well, okay. Ignore it. But don't complain ten or twenty years from now when the logical effects have become even more pronounced in a dystopian way.

[ljm2002]

121. Apparently, Hillary is not the only one...

...who chooses to deflect when the subject of her coziness with Wall Street comes up.

Quelle surprise.

[PowerToThePeople]

122. Why would you be receptive to her?

She is a republican.