U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[Shryke]

Re: The Clinton Article

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/it-looks-bribery-actually-it-doesnt

The allegation, then, is that the donations influenced the process – the Clinton Foundation received money from the company, the Clinton-run State Department approved a deal that benefited the company and its buyers. It’s why Romney’s suddenly comfortable throwing around words like “bribery.”

The problem, of course, is that the relevant details don’t support the thesis. On the contrary, the facts seem to disprove the charge quite clearly. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the review of the Uranium One deal, and nine separte U.S. agencies – the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, et al – were involved in the process, not just State.

It’s entirely possible some the Clinton Foundation’s donors hoped to curry favor with Hillary Clinton, but there’s literally no evidence at all that she ever lifted a finger to help the Canadian mining company or any other entity that ever contributed a dime.

Indeed, in this case, the timing doesn’t even make sense – the Canadian company donated to the Clinton Foundation in early 2008. Hillary Clinton didn’t become Secretary of State until a year later.

NBC News added this morning, “pon reflection, that Times article doesn’t hold up that well 24 hours after its publication.”

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Hungry troll is trolling.

Stop feeding it's ugly mouth.

TP, pointing out Clinton's lack of accomplishments isn't trolling just because you don't like it. Isn't this the U.S. Political thread? Or did I stumble into the pat a Dem on the back thread again?

If I somehow missed her obvious achievements, I'd be open to hear about them.

Being First Lady (actually second or third on Bill's list) doesn't exactly make one qualified for President. If that was the case, any staffer or cabinet member would be more qualified, being more involved than the First Lady. As I've stated, many feel like her time as Secretary was not successful. I'd include myself in that group. And it's not just the GOP. It's the N.Y. Times beating her up. A sizeable portion of the Dems don't like the woman. She's as corrupt as Bill, but nowhere near as charismatic.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You missed the boat on this one.

Aceluby is, by way of counterexample, showing you that you're engaged in a logical fallacy.

It's generally known as the "hasty conclusion" but is more colloquially known as the "if there's smoke, there's fire" fallacy. In your argument, you posit that the mere fact that there are "questions being raised" (very passive voice) about Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State means that it's a "massive failure" that's beyond debate.

This, of course, is silly. Anyone can ask questions, for any reason, and the answers to those questions may say good or bad things about Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The mere fact that someone is "raising questions" - especially when we live in a partisan political climate where ideological mouthpieces are paid by major media organizations to ask these questions - doesn't indicate that Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State was good, bad or neutral. It just means that someone's asking a question. Could be a good question. Could be a bad question. Could have a good answer. Could have a bad answer. But you can't escape actually doing the legwork and making the argument for why you think she did a good job or bad job just because someone, somewhere is asking a question.

I don't doubt ace actually believes I'm a racist and a sexist. Ace had thrown those names my way before. But I get your point. Massive failure was more of my opinion. But let's be honest, the only one touting her record as Secretary is Hillary Clinton. As long as no one asks her about benghazi, her emails, or these new foundation accusations, she'll be happy to talk about her service!

[Commodore]

An ex-president and his wife taking tens of millions in bribes from Russian oligarchs to sell the US uranium supply to Vladimir Putin.

All this appearing in the NYTimes two months after it is revealed Hillary had wiped her email servers.

You couldn't write a script for 24 this crazy.

And yet she will never be prosecuted, and will probably be the Democratic nominee and perhaps the President.

[lokisnow]

Clinton's time as Secretary of State should be a disqualifier in it's self. Just look at all the questions being raised right now about it. At best, she was a massive failure as Secretary. There's no debating that.

The act of raising questions in an of itself indicates absolutely nothing. Certainly, someone, somewhere, engaging in the action of raising questions does not disqualify anyone, anywhere for any particular job.

[Larry of the Lawn]

TP, pointing out Clinton's lack of accomplishments isn't trolling just because you don't like it. Isn't this the U.S. Political thread? Or did I stumble into the pat a Dem on the back thread again?

If I somehow missed her obvious achievements, I'd be open to hear about them.

Being First Lady (actually second or third on Bill's list) doesn't exactly make one qualified for President. If that was the case, any staffer or cabinet member would be more qualified, being more involved than the First Lady. As I've stated, many feel like her time as Secretary was not successful. I'd include myself in that group. And it's not just the GOP. It's the N.Y. Times beating her up. A sizeable portion of the Dems don't like the woman. She's as corrupt as Bill, but nowhere near as charismatic.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. She was also a Senator. Maybe instead of bleating about how she lacks the credentials (which she clearly doesn't, since she has the same or better credentials than all other contenders) or how she lacks the qualifications (slightly different, but you haven't even bothered to make this argument either). You do Synyster Gates a disservice by failing to step up your game.

All you've offered is "people are asking questions", The NYT article, which seems to be shaky at best considering what Shryke linked, and that 'a sizeable portion of Dems don't like the woman.' None of those things have anything to do with her credentials or qualifications.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

An ex-president and his wife taking tens of millions in bribes from Russian oligarchs to sell the US uranium supply to Vladimir Putin.

All this appearing in the NYTimes two months after it is revealed Hillary had wiped her email servers.

You couldn't write a script for 24 this crazy.

And yet she will never be prosecuted, and will probably be the Democratic nominee and perhaps the President.

Seems like someone didn't read the actual New York Times article, which doesn't say what you say it does, and has only read the bullshit right-wing hack synopsis of it.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You do Synyster Gates a disservice by failing to step up your game

[emoji6] Don't go there bro...

You're right, these accusations have nothing to do with her credentials or qualifications. They bring up the issue of her character. http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/majority-of-voters-think-hillary-is-untrustworthy-poll/, which may be a issue also. It's a trifecta really.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

But most of the other news in the poll was upbeat for Clinton.

She has strong leadership qualities according to 62 percent of voters compared with 34 percent who said she didn’t.

And she beat every Democratic and Republican rival in head-to-head match-ups.

Reading past headlines is hard work.

[FuzzydaBear]

Are you a sexist and a racist? Just look at the questions being asked right now about it. There's no debating it.

I was told a month or so ago that the debate tactics would change from the left yelling racist to sexist.

It is funny to see it starting to happen.

Nothing has been said that is sexist about Hillary Clinton running for the Presidency but somehow the left sees any attack (credentials in this case) as a sexist attack.

[MerenthaClone]

I was told a month or so ago that the debate tactics would change from the left yelling racist to sexist.

It is funny to see it starting to happen.

Nothing has been said that is sexist about Hillary Clinton running for the Presidency but somehow the left sees any attack (credentials in this case) as a sexist attack.

So, this is you utterly missing the point of what aceluby was saying.

Everyone is asking questions about just how silly you are right now.

[lokisnow]

[emoji6] Don't go there bro...

You're right, these accusations have nothing to do with her credentials or qualifications. They bring up the issue of her character. http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/majority-of-voters-think-hillary-is-untrustworthy-poll/, which may be a issue also. It's a trifecta really.

How is it a trifecta if you admit in the same sentence two of the THREE parts of your claimed trifecta are not part of said trifecta?

[Inigima]

The current Democratic president is black. The likely Democratic nominee is female. Republicans have a storied history of demographic-based insults. It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to predict that the nature of the disgusting insults Republicans perpetrate is likely to change. But sure, pat yourself on the back.

Christ, this new crop of right-wing scrubs. The show really is a pox.

[Shryke]

And no one noticed my link at the top of this page that is REALLY topical to the current thread discussion.

[Larry of the Lawn]

And no one noticed my link at the top of this page that is REALLY topical to the current thread discussion.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. She was also a Senator. Maybe instead of bleating about how she lacks the credentials (which she clearly doesn't, since she has the same or better credentials than all other contenders) or how she lacks the qualifications (slightly different, but you haven't even bothered to make this argument either). You do Synyster Gates a disservice by failing to step up your game.

All you've offered is "people are asking questions", The NYT article, which seems to be shaky at best considering what Shryke linked, and that 'a sizeable portion of Dems don't like the woman.' None of those things have anything to do with her credentials or qualifications.

:P

[Shryke]

Someone noticed! I must have missed it.

Here's some more:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/thinkprogress-report-schweizer-admits-he-cannot/203361

Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash reportedly does not prove its speculative attacks on the Clintons and even relies on a hoax press release to support a claim, according to ThinkProgress

This should be exactly what you expected since the author is a known right-wing hack and liar and the NYT has always been willing to sully it's reputation to go after the Clintons. Really, tons of people are willing to lie to go after the Clintons as the 90s proved. And nothing has changed.

It's gonna be Vince Foster stories for the next 1.5 to 9.5 years, so gird your fucking loins people.

[lokisnow]

Someone noticed! I must have missed it.

Here's some more:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/thinkprogress-report-schweizer-admits-he-cannot/203361

This should be exactly what you expected since the author is a known right-wing hack and liar and the NYT has always been willing to sully it's reputation to go after the Clintons. Really, tons of people are willing to lie to go after the Clintons as the 90s proved. And nothing has changed.

It's gonna be Vince Foster stories for the next 1.5 to 9.5 years, so gird your fucking loins people.

Think God obamas background is so squeaky clean. Remember when the clowns tried to manufacture nonsense about his neighbors to try and indict him in Clinton fashion? Love it never worked on Obama.

[FuzzydaBear]

The current Democratic president is black. The likely Democratic nominee is female. Republicans have a storied history of demographic-based insults. It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to predict that the nature of the disgusting insults Republicans perpetrate is likely to change. But sure, pat yourself on the back.

Christ, this new crop of right-wing scrubs. The show really is a pox.

I guess since the last GOP Presidential administration included the 1st black Secretary of State (Colin Powell) and the 1st black woman (Condoleezza Rice)to be National Security Advisor plus the 1st black woman (Condoleezza Rice) to be the Secretary of State in the 2nd term doesn't count for anything.

Christ, this new crop of liberal tolerance is soon forgotten. The show really is a pox.

Remember when those two were in those positions the left couldn't and didn't use the cries of racism and sexism that they have been using for the past 6 plus years?

[lokisnow]

I guess since the last GOP Presidential administration included the 1st black Secretary of State (Colin Powell) and the 1st black woman (Condoleezza Rice)to be National Security Advisor plus the 1st black woman (Condoleezza Rice) to be the Secretary of State in the 2nd term doesn't count for anything.

Christ, this new crop of liberal tolerance is soon forgotten. The show really is a pox.

Remember when those two were in those positions the left couldn't and didn't use the cries of racism and sexism that they have been using for the past 6 plus years?

You are correct that Bush had a more diverse cabinet than any prior republican administration.

[FuzzydaBear]

You are correct that Bush had a more diverse cabinet than any prior republican administration.

Or any other Administration prior.