Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you think she would veto Medicare for all?

I don't know. She may. She may not. The point is she isn't pushing for it and she did push against it when Bernie was pushing for it in debates. She called it "magical ponies".

She'll latch onto whatever she thinks will sell, and she isn't great at making that assessment.

That's the heart of who she is.

Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

After she supported it strenuously, because she saw the switch as politically expedient.

And in what way is it a liberal or conservative position?

I was tempted to ask you that.

That struck me especially hard in her debate with Sanders. He kept saying "get money out of politics". She kept replying "Yes, get dark money out of politics". She likes money in politics. She wants money in politics. She needs money in politics.

So you have your fever-brained idea that she really, really didn't mean it.

I can't tell if she meant it or not. What I can see is that she insisted on inserted the word dark. That's her admitting that she doesn't oppose money in politics generally, as Bernie does. She wants and needs it.

Whether it's a myth or not is still in dispute and it's definitely a liberal position.

Sure, on a lie. That's not liberal enough for me. I need liberal positions on truths.

Right before the election. She went and told her donors to "cut it out".

And that means what?

Who knows? It being said while accepting their campaign contributions speaks volumes however.

Clinton is in favor of maintaining American influence in the Middle East.

How is that liberal?

What is the liberal position on relations with middle eastern nations and how does Hillary diverge from it?

I asked you first. I've answered plenty of these. You can answer one. Is intervention in foreign lands and starting wars against brown people liberal?

The question you raised is whether she is liberal enough, not whether she's unique. Goal post movement noted.

For her to be liberal enough to me, she would have to stand out for her liberalism and not hold the positions of a Republican-light.

Liberals aren't afraid of calling nazis nazis.

Liberals ARE guarded against calling everyone they disagree with nazis and calling for punches to their faces though.

She told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security and survival."

That's definitely not liberal.

Hey, finally one I agree with you on.

Does that mean I should reconsider my position? Hmm.. maybe she didn't mean it as what she thought should be, but as a statement of what the facts are due to powers we know nothing about. Maybe she was saying even a President firmly against Israel couldn't get America to appear neutral on Israel because some unseen force would sweep in and edit her speech or assassinate her. Yeah, I'll go with that.

Frankly, most of your complaints about her is that you just don't believe her. That's your problem, not hers.

Most of my issues with her are that she's Republican-light. Another problem I have with her is that I don't believe her, yes. She picks up whatever policies she thinks will sell, because I think her goal is to get into power, and not so much to better the country. That is not really my problem. She isn't even running for leader of my country. But since I'm not the only one with that view of her, it is her problem. She may be your President today without said problem.

 

[ZiprHead]

Most of my issues with her are that she's Republican-light. Another problem I have with her is that I don't believe her, yes. She picks up whatever policies she thinks will sell, because I think her goal is to get into power, and not so much to better the country. That is not really my problem. She isn't even running for leader of my country. But since I'm not the only one with that view of her, it is her problem. She may be your President today without said problem.

So it's all in what you think, facts be damned. Gotcha'.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't know. She may. She may not. The point is she isn't pushing for it and she did push against it when Bernie was pushing for it in debates. She called it "magical ponies".



That's the heart of who she is.

Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

After she supported it strenuously, because she saw the switch as politically expedient.

And in what way is it a liberal or conservative position?

I was tempted to ask you that.

That struck me especially hard in her debate with Sanders. He kept saying "get money out of politics". She kept replying "Yes, get dark money out of politics". She likes money in politics. She wants money in politics. She needs money in politics.

So you have your fever-brained idea that she really, really didn't mean it.

I can't tell if she meant it or not. What I can see is that she insisted on inserted the word dark. That's her admitting that she doesn't oppose money in politics generally, as Bernie does. She wants and needs it.

Whether it's a myth or not is still in dispute and it's definitely a liberal position.

Sure, on a lie. That's not liberal enough for me. I need liberal positions on truths.

Right before the election. She went and told her donors to "cut it out".

And that means what?

Who knows? It being said while accepting their campaign contributions speaks volumes however.

Clinton is in favor of maintaining American influence in the Middle East.

How is that liberal?

What is the liberal position on relations with middle eastern nations and how does Hillary diverge from it?

I asked you first. I've answered plenty of these. You can answer one. Is intervention in foreign lands and starting wars against brown people liberal?

The question you raised is whether she is liberal enough, not whether she's unique. Goal post movement noted.

For her to be liberal enough to me, she would have to stand out for her liberalism and not hold the positions of a Republican-light.

Liberals aren't afraid of calling nazis nazis.

Liberals ARE guarded against calling everyone they disagree with nazis and calling for punches to their faces though.

She told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security and survival."

That's definitely not liberal.

Hey, finally one I agree with you on.

Does that mean I should reconsider my position? Hmm.. maybe she didn't mean it as what she thought should be, but as a statement of what the facts are due to powers we know nothing about. Maybe she was saying even a President firmly against Israel couldn't get America to appear neutral on Israel because some unseen force would sweep in and edit her speech or assassinate her. Yeah, I'll go with that.

Frankly, most of your complaints about her is that you just don't believe her. That's your problem, not hers.

Most of my issues with her are that she's Republican-light. Another problem I have with her is that I don't believe her, yes. She picks up whatever policies she thinks will sell, because I think her goal is to get into power, and not so much to better the country. That is not really my problem. She isn't even running for leader of my country. But since I'm not the only one with that view of her, it is her problem. She may be your President today without said problem.

If she's "republican-light" then Trump's a republican fat ass! And yet you like Trump. I don't get it. Anyway, please be specific: on what issues is she republican?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And yet you like Trump. I don't get it.

I don't either. Where in the world did you get the idea that I like Trump?

 

[Harry Bosch]

And yet you like Trump. I don't get it.

I don't either. Where in the world did you get the idea that I like Trump?

Interesting that you skipped my question. Do you really think that some of her issues were republican light? If so, which ones?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And yet you like Trump. I don't get it.

I don't either. Where in the world did you get the idea that I like Trump?

Interesting that you skipped my question. Do you really think that some of her issues were republican light? If so, which ones?

She's for Romneycare / Obamacare instead of Universal Single Payer.

She's for keeping money in politics, only wanting to get rid of "dark" money, and only as a talking point she thinks will sell.

She's for foreign wars.

She's against a neutral stance on Israel/Palestine.

Until not long before the 2008 election, she was against gay marriage.

There's some for starters.

Now, answer my question. Why did you think I was a Trump supporter?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Interesting that you skipped my question. Do you really think that some of her issues were republican light? If so, which ones?

She's for Romneycare / Obamacare instead of Universal Single Payer.

She's for keeping money in politics, only wanting to get rid of "dark" money, and only as a talking point she thinks will sell.

She's for foreign wars.

She's against a neutral stance on Israel/Palestine.

Until not long before the 2008 election, she was against gay marriage.

There's some for starters.

Now, answer my question. Why did you think I was a Trump supporter?

?? There are millions of Americans who have health care today due to Obama care. Millions. People now do not have to worry about losing their benefits due to pre-existing conditions if they are fired from a job. Mentally ill people are now allowed the same access to health care as non-mentally ill. Obama care is a step in the right direction that is helping millions. And the republicans tried to kill it. HRC is more militarily aggressive than some democrats. However, she's an internationalist. As was Obama. Republicans like to go it alone. Big difference. Democrats want alliances. Reps don't. How is she against a neutral stance on Israel/Palestine? She favors the two-state solution. Republicans today are mostly against the two state solution. Is that all that you have?

You've praised Trump in quite a few posts that I've read and scorn the democrats. I'll try to find the posts when I have time.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are millions of Americans who have health care today due to Obama care.

You mean Romneycare. The same policies that Romney was initially pushing. Republican. Obama talked a big game in the 2008 election but didn't even TRY for universal health care. He bargained down from his "public option" thing. He didn't even start with universal healthcare as a place to start the negotiation. Hillary firmly stood against Bernie's call for true single payer, and called it "magical ponies".

HRC is more militarily aggressive than some democrats. However, she's an internationalist. As was Obama.

She is for wars and military intervention abroad. So are Republicans. I'm not. She isn't as much of a hawk as many Republicans, sure, but that's why I said Republican-light. The USA can do better. Obama, again, talked a big game in the 2008 election but then went on to kill more people with drone strikes, not close that prison in cuba he promised to close immediately, etc.

How is she against a neutral stance on Israel/Palestine?

Its in the text Zipr just quoted from her platform. Scroll up.

You've praised Trump in quite a few posts that I've read and scorn the democrats. I'll try to find the posts when I have time.

Have I? Good luck with that one. I've consistently been for Bernie Sanders in that election, and even he is a little to far to the right for me. Calling Hillary and the corporate Democrats isn't the same thing as supporting Trump.

 

[angelo]

Throwing feces, yes. Undeserved feces? Not so much.

Which is funny, because I--and others--have systematically disproved any such assertions and instead of conceding the facts, it's this endless repetition of undeserved feces.

- - - Updated - - -

Case in point! Benghazi lies from agenda-monkeys....

Undeserved feces? Hello! WTF have you been for the past decade!!

Or back to the fact that you posted a source supposedly in support of your claim that everyone fucking hates her, or words to that effect, and of course I concede it was probably meant hyperbolically, yet the source you posted actually proved that upwards of 89% (77% Dems; 12% Indies) approve of her.

And since that's 89% of 50% of all registered voters (i.e., the percentage of total registered voters that vote Dem), compared to Trump's 82% of 26% (=pro-Trump total registered Republicans) plus 31% of 37% (=pro-Trump total registered Indies) against 42% total registered voters (i.e., percentage of total registered voters that vote Repug), that's still math I can't really do properly.

Coca Cola is by far the world's biggest selling drink. Does that make it the world's best for goodness or nutrition value? Isn't it much more likely that it's simply classified as junk food and to be used sparingly?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Coca Cola is by far the world's biggest selling drink.

Thank you for making the distinction that it's not a human being and therefore your idiotic analogy is not applicable. It saves me the time.

Plus the poll specifically tracked degrees of approval. The 89% represents the total Dems and Indies who approve of her.

Need anything else spoon fed to you?

 

[angelo]

Coca Cola is by far the world's biggest selling drink.

Thank you for making the distinction that it's not a human being and therefore your idiotic analogy is not applicable. It saves me the time.

Plus the poll specifically tracked degrees of approval. The 89% represents the total Dems and Indies who approve of her.

Need anything else spoon fed to you?

You just didn't get it did you! Killery is the junk food here. therefore........................... Isn't it much more likely that it's simply classified as junk food and to be used sparingly? Killery is the " Junk " politician of American politics no matter how many approve or disapprove of her.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You just didn't get it did you!

I can assure you there will never be anything that you ever post that I won't "get."

Killery is the junk food here.

Wait! OMG, REALLY!!?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact remains that Obama lost 60 seats in his mid term while the Trumpet lost 26.

Due almost exclusively to a combination of racism (Tea Party); gerrymandering; a long drawn out unprecedented healthcare debacle; and one of the worst recessions in our history. What’s Trump’s excuse?

"Worst recession in our history?" What, worse than the 30's?

The 30's were classed as a depression, not a recession.

 

[angelo]

"Worst recession in our history?" What, worse than the 30's?

The 30's were classed as a depression, not a recession.

Because of the progress of development and elimination of much of the world's poverty by Western Democracies since the 30's, there will never be anything like the great depression of that time. Therefore any downturn of national growth is today labeled a ' recession,' not a depression which I doubt we will ever see the likes of again, not in our life times anyway.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"Worst recession in our history?" What, worse than the 30's?

The 30's were classed as a depression, not a recession.

Because of the progress of development and elimination of much of the world's poverty by Western Democracies since the 30's, there will never be anything like the great depression of that time. Therefore any downturn of national growth is today labeled a ' recession,' not a depression which I doubt we will ever see the likes of again, not in our life times anyway.

Which is why I said “ONE of the worst recessions in our history,” but thanks for that utterly pointless merry-go-round.

Now answer the question. What’s Trump’s excuse?

 

[angelo]

Because of the progress of development and elimination of much of the world's poverty by Western Democracies since the 30's, there will never be anything like the great depression of that time. Therefore any downturn of national growth is today labeled a ' recession,' not a depression which I doubt we will ever see the likes of again, not in our life times anyway.

Which is why I said “ONE of the worst recessions in our history,” but thanks for that utterly pointless merry-go-round.

Now answer the question. What’s Trump’s excuse?

Please refresh my memory. Trump's excuse for what?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Please refresh my memory.

Please learn how to use the internet.

 

[angelo]

Please refresh my memory.

Please learn how to use the internet.

Yes of course. My apologies. The ' Internet " should be used only to attack opponents.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Please refresh my memory.

Please learn how to use the internet.

Yes of course. My apologies. The ' Internet " should be used only to attack opponents.

I was referring to the "scroll" function and/or the "previous page" function.

 

[angelo]

Yes of course. My apologies. The ' Internet " should be used only to attack opponents.

I was referring to the "scroll" function and/or the "previous page" function.

of course you were!