Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.

    Hillary clinton's accomplishments

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by GingerCoffee, Sep 18, 2015.

    As if being a lawyer, a Senator and the Secretary of State weren't accomplishments, Carly Fiorina challenged Clinton supporters to name one accomplishment of Clinton's. More than a few Democrats took the challenge. Politico listed some of the answers:

    Politico - What is Hillary's Greatest Accomplishment?
    I think the challenge backfired. It's gotten a lot of press coverage of Clinton's many accomplishments.
     
  2. Bookster
    Offline

    Bookster Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Right between the eyes
    Touting her role in 'leading us to the agreement [with Iran] currently on the table' says everything you need to know about this corrupt, lying piece of dirt. Said agreement does nothing to make the US or Israel safer, but its multi-billion dollar gift to Iran does make the Obama administration the largest funder of state-sponsored terrorism in the world.
     
  3. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I think you should argue the Iran deal in a different thread.
     
  4. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    Note to mods: belongs in Fantasy subforum.
     
    Australis and The_Raven like this.
  5. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I can imagine a lot of Clinton's accomplishments, given they focus on the needs of women, don't seem like accomplishments to some men.

    I am curious though, if there's ever been a candidate for high office that had the resume of lawyer, Senator and Secretary of State who was belittled as having no accomplishments.
     
  6. BrianIff
    Offline

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    Canada
    I can hardly think of the last to have a cabinet position.

    Finished that other post -- tentatively :p

    Tried to atone format too :p
     
  7. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,218
    Likes Received:
    4,226
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    You forgot her being the First Lady. I'm sure First Ladies do a lot of things, so what did she do during the Clinton administration?
     
    GingerCoffee likes this.
  8. Bookster
    Offline

    Bookster Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Right between the eyes
    Notably, she tried to foist an earlier version of Obamacare on a weary nation. That one wouldn't have worked, either.
     
  9. Bookster
    Offline

    Bookster Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Right between the eyes
    HA! You brought it up.
     
  10. outsider
    Offline

    outsider Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    609
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Disregarded that semen stain.
     
    daemon and Australis like this.
  11. edamame
    Offline

    edamame Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    385
    It's not surprising that her supporters would know and laud her accomplishments, but I doubt they'd bring up any criticism. How is she informing other Democrats and non-Democrats? What is she promising to do going forward?

    It would be great if the DNC allowed for more debates and didn't punish candidates to deter them from having "non-sanctioned" ones so more people could learn about Hillary and the other candidates in their own words. All of them are open to more debates.

    As a Democrat, I'm looking for the candidate that best represents my interests and it's only recently that Hillary finally made some stances on issues like opposing the Keystone Pipeline. So far, she's failing to win me over but someone else is.

    'Debate': Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and the video in smaller chunks via a playlist.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
    Lea`Brooks likes this.
  12. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    DNC chair wants Hillary, and more debates don't help that. They want the big-money establishment candidate. A lot of progressives want more debates, but the Dems know they'll fall in line in the general election so why listen to them? Many progressives are all talk.
     
  13. edamame
    Offline

    edamame Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    385
    There's something called the primaries. Sabotaging their own voter base isn't really inspiring.
     
  14. Australis
    Offline

    Australis Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Are they for real? I doubt there's a single country (except maybe Canada), where America is respected any longer. Even in Australia, America would have a negative credibility rating.
     
  15. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    You missed the point.
     
  16. edamame
    Offline

    edamame Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    385
    I didn't miss the point. I think it's important now to resist being funneled before the primaries. The DNC chair berated protestors for chanting about wanting more debates and said Democrats should be focused on being against the Republicans. If you're talking to your Democratic Party voters, that's already a moot point. She's arguing against what they and the candidates themselves want and are open to, which is hypocrisy.

    Maybe people fall in line because they end up choosing what they see as the lesser of two evils. It happens. Doesn't mean that you can't resist before then to have more options.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  17. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    This is not true.

    I don't believe in the Democratic debate conspiracy theories. It's early.

    The GOP has so many candidates they can't hold a single debate and they have a ratings goldmine with Trump. It's not comparable to the Democratic Primary.

    As for criticisms: Clinton lacks transparency, so does Obama. She has too many ties to big money, so does Obama. I would still vote for him knowing that.

    But Clinton has a lifelong history of being a Progressive and an advocate for Women's rights. And we need that too. We need someone who is competent, not just idealistic.


    Since you brought up Sanders, there is the very serious problem that he can't win the general election. No matter how it looks when the news media shows him at his well attended campaign rallies.

    The news is only showing little snippets of his rallies. I really thought he had a positive response at Liberty University when the news showed people clapping for his right to choose POV. Then I find out that was a small group of Bernie followers that came along. When he was asked why he didn't care about an unborn life, there was a very long standing ovation for the question. The news clip had been extremely misleading.

    And Sanders hasn't been subject to attack ads yet. They might up the contributions for him but he's very vulnerable to his socialism label and his not so liberal stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's also vulnerable to looking incompetent.

    Take a look at this exchange, at how poorly Sanders manages the crowd, watch him lose his temper when people disagree with him.


    I absolutely agree with his message that we have to address income inequality and the influence of all that money on government. But what's the point of idealism if he either loses to one of those GOP nut jobs, or he gets elected but he is completely ineffective.

    Obama has been realistic and he's gotten a lot accomplished because of it. Sanders has some good ideas, but what good are they when he can't even manage an unruly town hall crowd?
     
    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh likes this.
  18. Australis
    Offline

    Australis Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Democrats shouldn't hold debates so far out, because they only have several candidates, and none of them would hold up to much scrutiny.
    It makes little difference to the Republicans, because if one turns out to be a fail, there's ten to take his place. That, plus, they're hoping that Trump will open his mouth once too often.
     
  19. edamame
    Offline

    edamame Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    385
    @GingerCoffee

    I didn't bring up a conspiracy theory, someone else did. I just pointed out it would be better to have more debates and let the candidates speak for themselves. Having more discourse and debate is simply promoting democracy. Even if the DNC decides six debates is enough, why penalize the candidates by forbidding them to be in them if they go to "non-sanctioned" ones? Even Hillary is open to more debates now, although she originally only wanted 4 debates.

    Yes, I brought up Sanders. In one line. To a link you could choose to investigate or discard.

    It's absolutely easy to tell someone to stop backing someone because they can't win, that they're not realistic. How many people thought having an African-American president was a pipe dream before Obama was elected and re-elected? I don't see Sanders losing control of the crowd and I don't know why you imply he is incompetent. He's been a mayor, representative and senator. He's been in politics since the '80s. I have said nothing nasty about Hillary in the post and your argument is only pushing me further away from supporting a candidate you like. I don't even dislike her, I just think Sanders is a better candidate right now.

    As for Hillary being progressive, at one point she defined marriage as between a man and a woman. She didn't come out for gay marriage until 2013. I believe she's adaptable and changeable with the times, but presently, I think Sanders is the type of progressive we need. I say this sincerely even though Hillary was the senator of my state and I voted for her.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  20. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Remember, this is a friendly thread. Thanks.

    Patience my dear. There's a long way to go.

    I'm the one that labeled it a conspiracy theory to elect Clinton. I just don't think that went into the decision. Just because the Party supports Clinton doesn't mean they needed to limit debates to support her. I don't think they did.

    For the record, I didn't ignore it. I am one of those political junkies. I pay attention to all of it, but especially the talking points, marketing, and the media that knows scandal is more profitable than information.

    Not me. I never made that argument with Obama. Despite what some people in the forum would have us believe, it's not about images for me, it's about evidence.

    Competent as President is quite another thing from competent as a Senator. He comes across horribly in that town meeting the same way he came across poorly when the Black Lives Matter crashed his event. Clinton could have done better with the Black Lives Matter crowd, I thought of better answers than she gave. But she did better than Sanders by far.

    I believe you are sincere, don't think I don't. And I believe you are looking at the evidence. We just see it differently.

    As for changing positions on gay marriage, Obama did the same thing. And yes, both of them took the politically expedient position. The important thing is which was their real position all along, and which was the politically expedient position? I happen to believe both Obama and Clinton were always pro gay-rights.

    Would it be nice if politicians were never untrue to their ideals? Of course. But look at the GOP. Those idiots (sorry forum friends on the right but your reps are a hot mess) stick to their principles (or cater to their base) to the point of paralyzing the government. What good is that?

    One thing I teach parents that applies here is to pick your battles. Be willing to give up the little things and stick to the important things.

    Gay rights were important to me, very important. I have gay friends, my son has gay friends, he was a member of the gay-straight alliance in high school and I couldn't have been prouder. I campaigned for Prop 74 (the right for gays to marry) in WA State.

    Did it bother me that Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman? No, because I knew that with all his other Progressive beliefs it was disingenuous. And it turned out it was.

    Did Obama's change of positions make you think less of him? Did his initial position make you not want to vote for him?

    I'm going to guess the answer is no.

    But when the right wing is out there promoting Hillary as dishonest, her change of position confirms that image.

    In a world of idealism, Sanders looks like the best candidate. But in the real world, give me a candidate that shares my values and is competent and can win. The stakes are too high to choose otherwise. Just look at what the outcome might have been if Ralph Nader hadn't taken those few votes away from Al Gore.

    Bill Clinton was on to Osama Bin Laden. Bush dropped that ball. And even if 911 had happened, we'd never have had the Iraq War had Gore been elected. Those consequences were devastating and we'll be suffering the repercussions for many more years to come.

    It's one thing to want a third party candidate. It's one thing to want the candidate you find idealistically more appealing. It's quite another to deal with the consequences of that idealism.
     
  21. Australis
    Offline

    Australis Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    That is not true. Late in Clinton's administration, America, along with the rest of the world, declared the Taliban rightful rulers of Afghanistan, and supplied weapons to eliminate the northern alliance (as it was called in those days).
    This was done for two reasons. First, it was hoped that the Taliban would eliminate poppy growing, which over 70% of the world's supply had been coming from Afghanistan. The second reason was being anti-Iran.
    Clinton in his anti-Iranian zeal, along with everybody else, hoped to have an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Now, in those days, Iran was one of the most liberal Middle Eastern states, with a moderate for president.
    But America, and Clinton could never forgive Iran for purchasing quality Russian weapons, instead of the overpriced garbage America was flogging.
    And so, Clinton and co jumped into bed with the Taliban.
     
  22. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    WTF? Care to cite your sources of this information?

    Mine is Richard Clarke in Against All Enemies.
     
  23. edamame
    Offline

    edamame Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    385
    @GingerCoffee

    At this point, it seems like you're for Hillary because you feel she's more diplomatic. But no one's competent at PR all the time which is what I think you are saying about Sanders.

    "Did it bother me that Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman? No, because I knew that with all his other Progressive beliefs it was disingenuous. And it turned out it was." -- The problem with this is, how do you know when your politician's being disingenuous and what happens when you're wrong? If I find a candidate who is consistent with what he says and does, that builds trust.

    If Sanders loses the primaries and doesn't cede to Hillary (he will), that's something to worry about. But there's no point in making analogies and blaming Nader because Gore failed to capture those votes, especially when unclear voting in Florida was the issue for his loss to Bush. Gore did win the popular vote after all.

    Do I want to vote out out of the fear that someone like Trumph will win? No. I don't see Sanders as a lost cause and I feel the public's reaction to him is moving Hillary to be more progressive such as her recent reaction to drug gouging. Weeks before, Sanders introduced a bill to empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices and to allow cheaper imports from Canada. Hillary may be a diplomat but Sanders is showing me leadership.

    So yes, Hillary has to win me over. She should start getting vocal about that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  24. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Not competent at PR, competent to be the President of the US. It's a job that requires an incredible amount of skill, well beyond just the right ideology.

    You know by looking at who the candidate has been over many decades.

    Sanders wouldn't be a lost cause if he had more going for him than he does. Obama was clearly not a lost cause. Sanders is no Obama, unfortunately.

    But Clinton is an incredible candidate. She's under attack by the GOP machine that is very good at marketing negative images. It's a baseless assault, regardless of what the people who have fallen for it believe.

    She will, if you are willing to listen and if you don't buy into the smear campaign.
     
  25. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    1,726
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    I (and hundreds of thousands other supporters) disagree with this statement.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page