The Hillary Clinton thread

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 11:08 am

msduncan wrote:My favorite is Popeye's Chicken. God I love their biscuits

Do yourself a favor and plan a road trip to Strasburg, Ohio for baked and breaded chicken at The Manor.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu May 05, 2016 11:22 am

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:32 pm

hepcat wrote:
msduncan wrote:My favorite is Popeye's Chicken. God I love their biscuits
Do yourself a favor and plan a road trip to Strasburg, Ohio for baked and breaded chicken at The Manor.

Lee's is a chain, so while rare, they can be found. Lee's is the reason I will die of a heart attack. So good.

http://www.leesfamousrecipe.com/

(This assumes that all Lee's are as good as the one near my work)

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:36 pm

I can't help but shake the feeling that when Trump starts dialing in his attacks, Hillary is going to take a beating. I know how many have speculated that she's unflappable and quite capable of holding her own, but Trump is off the charts. And not for anything, he doesn't even have to make anything up yet - he can come out of the gate swinging about how deeply embedded she is in "the establishment" that he's apparently railing against.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:45 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I can't help but shake the feeling that when Trump starts dialing in his attacks, Hillary is going to take a beating. I know how many have speculated that she's unflappable and quite capable of holding her own, but Trump is off the charts. And not for anything, he doesn't even have to make anything up yet - he can come out of the gate swinging about how deeply embedded she is in "the establishment" that he's apparently railing against.

I think you're giving Trump too much credit. He never had to make anything up. He just does. Why use real issues when fake ones are so much more fun?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:48 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I can't help but shake the feeling that when Trump starts dialing in his attacks, Hillary is going to take a beating. I know how many have speculated that she's unflappable and quite capable of holding her own, but Trump is off the charts. And not for anything, he doesn't even have to make anything up yet - he can come out of the gate swinging about how deeply embedded she is in "the establishment" that he's apparently railing against.

Sure she will - that's how attack ads work. But Trump is also going to take a beating, and Hillary certainly doesn't have to make anything up either. And most polls seems to indicate Hillary being up by 10+ points, which is a LOT (by comparison, in 2008, which was a huge democratic year (North Carolina voted Obama!), Obama won by about 7%.

So not only does Hillary have to take a beating, she has to take a beating by MUCH more than Trump takes a beating. And like I've been talking about in the Trumpocalypse thread, there are a LOT of factors working against Trump (and I didn't even cover all of them there!).

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:50 pm

Whatever happens, this is probably going to be the ugliest, mud-slinging-est election of modern times. Either one of these candidates would be a dream opponent for someone looking to dig up dirt, and they're squaring off against EACH OTHER.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:50 pm

My favorite Trump attack method is when he repeats something that's utterly outrageous and easily proven false...then prefaces it with, "I don't know if it's true, but I've been told...".

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:53 pm

YellowKing wrote:Whatever happens, this is probably going to be the ugliest, mud-slinging-est election of modern times. Either one of these candidates would be a dream opponent for someone looking to dig up dirt, and they're squaring off against EACH OTHER.

Is there really any dirt on either of them we are not already aware of? They are both pretty public figures. Hillary is apparently coated with teflon and Trump is... well... Trump.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu May 05, 2016 1:55 pm

Oh we've seen all the dirt before, we'll just have to sit through it again. And because we've seen it all before, they'll have to resort to who can out-shout the other.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:00 pm

Trump has decades of evidence of outrageous sexism, racism, cronyism and dubious business practices behind him. For the most part, he proudly admits to them in radio and video interviews.

But that doesn't matter one bit to his supporters. He ain't a minority, and he ain't using ten dollar words. That's all they need. If Clinton were to just dumb it down. Maybe drop the n word now and again? Perhaps talk about how many men she went through in college? Proudly talk about how she's made a killing with her "charities"? Man, the sky would be the limit.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:11 pm

hepcat wrote:Trump has decades of evidence of outrageous sexism, racism, cronyism and dubious business practices behind him. For the most part, he proudly admits to them in radio and video interviews.

But that doesn't matter one bit to his supporters. He ain't a minority, and he ain't using ten dollar words. That's all they need. If Clinton were to just dumb it down. Maybe drop the n word now and again? Perhaps talk about how many men she went through in college? Proudly talk about how she's made a killing with her "charities"? Man, the sky would be the limit.

Whereas Hillary hates and treats people like crap without discrimination. She would also never admit to any wrongdoing even if you had ironclad proof.

On the bright side after a term or two of her even a boring douchebag like Romney or Jeb! could win.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:13 pm

Yeeeesssss, yeeesssss, let your anger flow through you.

All Hail Hillary!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:22 pm

YellowKing wrote:Whatever happens, this is probably going to be the ugliest, mud-slinging-est election of modern times. Either one of these candidates would be a dream opponent for someone looking to dig up dirt, and they're squaring off against EACH OTHER.

The plan is for Clinton to take the high road of experience and steady knowledge and to allow her surrogates to do the mudslinging.

Trump has only mud to work with, and slinging is all he knows.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:24 pm

YellowKing wrote:Whatever happens, this is probably going to be the ugliest, mud-slinging-est election of modern times. Either one of these candidates would be a dream opponent for someone looking to dig up dirt, and they're squaring off against EACH OTHER.

Huge election for fans of dirt.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:46 pm

Rip wrote: On the bright side after a term or two of her even a boring douchebag like Romney or Jeb! could win.

Too bad no one that boring will ever get the nomination again.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:47 pm

Folks like Rip care for spectacle, not ability.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:04 pm

I, for one, am rooting for chaos and ugliness:

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:21 pm

Holman wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Whatever happens, this is probably going to be the ugliest, mud-slinging-est election of modern times. Either one of these candidates would be a dream opponent for someone looking to dig up dirt, and they're squaring off against EACH OTHER.
The plan is for Clinton to take the high road of experience and steady knowledge and to allow her surrogates to do the mudslinging.

Trump has only mud to work with, and slinging is all he knows.

While I am happy to see the Republican party implode, Clinton is not running to be president of the Democrats. She's running to be president of the US. And that's exactly why she can't have my vote. Well, not exactly why but one reason among more than a couple.

Us vs Them partisanship needs to die.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:36 pm

Yeah, it's unfortunate that her Presidency is just going to throw gasoline on the fire of partisanship. This is the woman who coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy." We're completely screwed.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:40 pm

That's like saying I'm not going to bandage my arm until there's a cure for gangrene (pretend I'm using that analogy in a time before antibiotics).

I'm not about to throw the whole country to the wolves simply because I can't resolve all my problems at once. I may not like her, but she's certainly the best option we have available to us...at least for now.

Trump as president < Hillary as president < resolving US vs. Them

In any case, that last one has been an issue in one way or another since the country was founded. We're human. This is what humans do. They pick sides. Then they throw rocks at anyone who didn't choose the same one. I honestly don't see that changing until we as animals fundamentally evolve.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:43 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I can't help but shake the feeling that when Trump starts dialing in his attacks, Hillary is going to take a beating. I know how many have speculated that she's unflappable and quite capable of holding her own, but Trump is off the charts. And not for anything, he doesn't even have to make anything up yet - he can come out of the gate swinging about how deeply embedded she is in "the establishment" that he's apparently railing against.

Dude. Trump's ace in the hole is to talk about how his dick is big. That works up until about grade 9 but then gets left in the dust. I realize this is impressive to his followers, but the rest of the world has moved onto yo' momma jokes, at a bare minimum.

This is the same guy that tried comparing wives as a way to win voters. I mean, Jesus Christ. *If* Hillary takes a beating...it'll be double facepalm time.

I out "argued/confronted" Trump's style before I was 10 years old. The only thing more embarrassing than his hamfisted nonsense is that it seems to be working.

"I have a big dick." "Lying Teddy." "My girlfriend and/or wife is better looking than your girlfriend and/or wife." He's a schmuck.

Whoever said (Romney?) if it weren't for his inheritance he'd be selling watches on the streets of NY were right.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:44 pm

YellowKing wrote:Yeah, it's unfortunate that her Presidency is just going to throw gasoline on the fire of partisanship. This is the woman who coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy." We're completely screwed.

Was it in response to Boehner vowing to oppose every single thing Obama tried to pass?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:45 pm

Way earlier

"Vast right-wing conspiracy" is a conspiracy theory referenced by then First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1998 in defense of her husband, President Bill Clinton, characterizing the continued allegations of scandal against her and her husband, including the Lewinsky scandal, as part of a long campaign by Clinton's political enemies.[1] The term has been used since, including in a question posed to Bill Clinton in 2009 to describe verbal attacks on Barack Obama during his early presidency.[2] Hillary Clinton mentioned it again during her 2016 presidential campaign.[3]

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:48 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote:I, for one, am rooting for chaos and ugliness:

<snip>

I grinned.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:49 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Holman wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Whatever happens, this is probably going to be the ugliest, mud-slinging-est election of modern times. Either one of these candidates would be a dream opponent for someone looking to dig up dirt, and they're squaring off against EACH OTHER.
The plan is for Clinton to take the high road of experience and steady knowledge and to allow her surrogates to do the mudslinging.

Trump has only mud to work with, and slinging is all he knows.

While I am happy to see the Republican party implode, Clinton is not running to be president of the Democrats. She's running to be president of the US. And that's exactly why she can't have my vote. Well, not exactly why but one reason among more than a couple.

Us vs Them partisanship needs to die.

Honestly, I don't understand what the complaint is here. The first tweet is saying that Trump is now the de facto leader of the Republican Party (which he more or less is, at the moment - at least, that's how the party nominee is typically regarded). She's then saying "here's what the Trump agenda is." Since the Trump agenda is bad, and Trump is leading the Republican party, you should not vote for Republicans.

The second tweet is also saying that the Republican party is generally in agreement with Trump. So again, if Trump agenda is bad, and the Republicans support the Trump agenda, you should not vote for Republicans.

Saying that the opposing party has a bad policy agenda is pretty typical for an election. Your agenda is good, their agenda is bad. What exactly are you looking for here?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Way earlier

"Vast right-wing conspiracy" is a conspiracy theory referenced by then First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1998 in defense of her husband, President Bill Clinton, characterizing the continued allegations of scandal against her and her husband, including the Lewinsky scandal, as part of a long campaign by Clinton's political enemies.[1] The term has been used since, including in a question posed to Bill Clinton in 2009 to describe verbal attacks on Barack Obama during his early presidency.[2] Hillary Clinton mentioned it again during her 2016 presidential campaign.[3]

And if Benghazi has taught us anything, it's that her wild claims of Republicans out to get her no matter the facts, no matter the consequences, have been pure paranoia on her part.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:53 pm

There's a difference between attacking your opponent and attacking your opponent's party, however subtle it may be.

It's sort of like someone who has a beef with you going after your mama because she raised you.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 3:54 pm

hepcat wrote:They pick sides. Then they throw rocks at anyone who didn't choose the same one.

I reject this and I refuse to be a part of the perpetuation. I refuse to accept this from an elected official. (though my rejection is not on principle. There is a point where politics completely break down and us v them becomes the last tactic. That'll be another civil war if it happens)

When I need an arbitrary nationalist entity to root for, I turn to sports. That's what they're there for.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:01 pm

For the record, partisanship has always been worse than it is today, except maybe for a few short periods where world events impacted politics and united citizens.

It's not like Hillary claimed to have heard that Trump fucks the pigs.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:03 pm

LordMortis wrote:
hepcat wrote:They pick sides. Then they throw rocks at anyone who didn't choose the same one.
I reject this and I refuse to be a part of the perpetuation. I refuse to accept this from an elected official. (though my rejection is not on principle. There is a point where politics completely break down and us v them becomes the last tactic. That'll be another civil war if it happens)

Careful or they will start throwing rocks at YOU.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:05 pm

El Guapo wrote:Honestly, I don't understand what the complaint is here.

If trump wins are we the nation of Trump? He's no longer just trying to be republican leader, he's leader of the US.

Are Democrats the party of Clinton? Should I attack and vote against all democrats because I don't want her to be my next president? If she wins will we be the nation of Clinton?

The second tweet is also saying that the Republican party is generally in agreement with Trump. So again, if Trump agenda is bad, and the Republicans support the Trump agenda, you should not vote for Republicans.

Actually, it pretty explicitly states that Kasich is the same as Trump (Taking reproductive rights and extending it the issues). I probably would have voted for Kasich had it been Kasich against Clinton, so now is she saying that I am the same as Trump?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:09 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Whoever said (Romney?) if it weren't for his inheritance he'd be selling watches on the streets of NY were right.

But at the same time, he entranced a good part of the nation and is the presumptive GOP nominee at this point. When he talks, people perk up and it doesn't matter what he's saying (truth, lie, steaks, etc...) -- he's enthralling. I have no doubts Hillary could hold her own against a traditional political candidate during a debate. But Trump? The crazier he gets, the more people lap it up. Dude just accused Ted Cruz's father of being a companion to Lee Harvey Oswald, implying he was likely involved in the JFK assassination. I can't even begin to imagine what he's going to hammer Hillary on, but I'm betting it will be an amazing spectacle.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:16 pm

Smoove_B wrote:But at the same time, he entranced a good part of the nation and is the presumptive GOP nominee at this point. When he talks, people perk up and it doesn't matter what he's saying (truth, lie, steaks, etc...) -- he's enthralling. I have no doubts Hillary could hold her own against a traditional political candidate during a debate. But Trump? The crazier he gets, the more people lap it up. Dude just accused Ted Cruz's father of being a companion to Lee Harvey Oswald, implying he was likely involved in the JFK assassination. I can't even begin to imagine what he's going to hammer Hillary on, but I'm betting it will be an amazing spectacle.

I can see him going after her being a fake New Yorker and that resonating.

I can imagine. Vince Foster. And I can see his following lap it up.

I can see him going after her for all that dreck that FB keep perpetuating up on her and Watergate and making his fanbase go absolutely nuts with fanaticism.

I can also imagine him going after her for Bill's affair(s) and I can imagine that backfiring on him really bad.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:17 pm

LordMortis wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Honestly, I don't understand what the complaint is here.
If trump wins are we the nation of Trump? He's no longer just trying to be republican leader, he's leader of the US.

Are Democrats the party of Clinton? Should I attack and vote against all democrats because I don't want her to be my next president? If she wins will we be the nation of Clinton?

The second tweet is also saying that the Republican party is generally in agreement with Trump. So again, if Trump agenda is bad, and the Republicans support the Trump agenda, you should not vote for Republicans.
Actually, it pretty explicitly states that Kasich is the same as Trump (Taking reproductive rights and extending it the issues). I probably would have voted for Kasich had it been Kasich against Clinton, so now is she saying that I am the same as Trump?

Clinton is not yet the democratic nominee, but once she gets the nomination yes, she will informally be the leader (or at the very least, one of the most important leaders) of the democratic party, at least until November. Generally speaking, democratic presidents push some variation of the mainstream democratic party agenda, and Republican presidents push some variation of the mainstream republican agenda.

On top of that, here Clinton is not even tarring based on just association - she's not saying "Trump is a Republican, other candidates are Republican, so they are all bad." Rather, starting from a position where polls show Trump to be wildly unpopular nationally, she's saying "Trump supports bad things. Other Republicans also support similar bad things. So, if you think Trump is bad because he supports those bad things and you are going to vote against him, you should also vote against these other Republicans who largely support the same bad things."

Indeed, with the Kasich comparison you're exactly the person that Hillary is trying to reach here. Trump is worse than Kasich, no doubt, but if you sit down and compare the official policy platforms of the two, you will probably find less differences than you think. That's the point.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:19 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Whoever said (Romney?) if it weren't for his inheritance he'd be selling watches on the streets of NY were right.
But at the same time, he entranced a good part of the nation and is the presumptive GOP nominee at this point. When he talks, people perk up and it doesn't matter what he's saying (truth, lie, steaks, etc...) -- he's enthralling. I have no doubts Hillary could hold her own against a traditional political candidate during a debate. But Trump? The crazier he gets, the more people lap it up. Dude just accused Ted Cruz's father of being a companion to Lee Harvey Oswald, implying he was likely involved in the JFK assassination. I can't even begin to imagine what he's going to hammer Hillary on, but I'm betting it will be an amazing spectacle.

Methinks you're giving him too much credit. His numbers don't translate into 50% of the popular vote in any (I think) of the states that have voted so far. In a toilet full of turds, he was the one who floated to the surface and avoided the first flush.

The party would probably be less wary of him if he actually majority popular support anywhere. That he doesn't is why the undercard is so nervous, if the backlash from those against him remains strong, they'll swirl down the drain with him on the second flush.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:22 pm

El Guapo wrote:Kind of struggling to see the problem here.

I see that you are. Color me as poor of a communicator as the Clinton Party, I guess.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:25 pm

LordMortis wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Kind of struggling to see the problem here.
I see that you are. Color me as poor of a communicator as the Clinton Party, I guess.

Let me ask you - assume for the moment that Kasich supports 90% of the same things as Trump. Would you still vote for him over Clinton?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:32 pm

El Guapo wrote:Let me ask you - assume for the moment that Kasich supports 90% of the same things as Trump. Would you still vote for him over Clinton?

What 90% was Kasich supporting the same as Trump? Kasich seemed to be the most budget oriented nominee and his track record in Ohio seemed to bear him out. Trump's track record with budgets? Not so much.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu May 05, 2016 4:38 pm

LordMortis wrote:
hepcat wrote:They pick sides. Then they throw rocks at anyone who didn't choose the same one.
I reject this and I refuse to be a part of the perpetuation.

You can reject the laws of gravity too, but that doesn't mean your ass doesn't hit the floor if your chair breaks.

Recognizing it does not equate to accepting it. I want us to evolve past that. But refusing to participate at all until that happens does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, and it ends up putting someone like Trump in a position of power.