Author Topic: Hillary Clinton  (Read 298504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #540 on: May 11, 2016, 12:05:40 PM »
And congratulations for not calling it  "chefist's Hillary blog". That showed uncommon restraint

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #541 on: May 11, 2016, 12:07:12 PM »
Edit:  And of course I will be on the other side of the net lobbing back all these soft balls


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #542 on: May 11, 2016, 12:08:33 PM »
And congratulations for not calling it  "chefist's Hillary blog". That showed uncommon restraint

It's all just time wasting fun...whether or not I put "chefist" somewhere really doesn't matter...I did it more so that those who did not want to read the thread could ignore it rather easily...

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #543 on: May 11, 2016, 12:08:44 PM »
Sredni- you dog!!!! Now I get it. I was wondering why a reasonably intelligent, rational man would be defending Hillary and it's become crystal clear- you fancy her!

Well, for the man who lusts after the sturdy, well seasoned, shrill types- she's a goddess. And a tease with the way she cocoons herself in those 'come hither' pants suits- she must drive you wild with desire.

I never would have guessed it, but the heart wants what the heart wants. I imagine the old dears are easier to catch, too.
Stop picking on Sredni. He's sensitive, you know

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #544 on: May 11, 2016, 12:11:26 PM »

Thanks VQ. I like the idea of being a female version of Indiana

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #545 on: May 11, 2016, 12:21:01 PM »
Thanks VQ. I like the idea of being a female version of Indiana

 ;D


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #546 on: May 11, 2016, 12:38:29 PM »
Stop picking on Sredni. He's sensitive, you know

He told you that? Oh bless.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #547 on: May 11, 2016, 01:00:18 PM »
Stop picking on Sredni. He's sensitive, you know

That's only when he forgets to use his special cream. 

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #548 on: May 11, 2016, 02:39:33 PM »
The gift that just keeps on giving...the Clinton's are amazing at double speak...the only problem is Hillary can't carry it off like Slick Willy..."It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

IT'S AN 'INVESTIGATION'
FBI boss Comey rebuffs Hillary’s ‘security inquiry’ narrative on emails

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #549 on: May 11, 2016, 06:12:06 PM »
One nation, under Hillary, with stupidity for all!


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #550 on: May 12, 2016, 07:47:12 PM »
Bragging and laughing about getting a rapist (of a 12 year old girl) off easy. Nice lady. Note how her accent is different now and then. Before anyone criticizes me, I know that even child rapists are entitled to a vigorous defense but a lawyer doesn't have to take the case (Hillary volunteered as a "favor") and certainly someone shouldn't be laughing about getting a predator they know is guilty off!


This is why I will never vote for her. And you'll never hear the media talking about this. Even if she uses the bullcrap of being an attorney and had to take the case (which I doubt) one of her talking points for defending this rapist was that SHE (the 12 year old rape victim) was promiscuous and partly to blame for being raped.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/234515/former-12-year-old-rape-victim-hillary-clinton-daniel-greenfield

Where is the media scrutiny on Hillary and this story? All victims of rape deserve to be believed unless they are accusing Bill Clinton or the person Hillary is defending.


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #551 on: May 13, 2016, 07:31:43 PM »
Charitable Foundation, eh?  Bill's "friend", eh?

http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/clinton-charity-arranged-2m-pledge-to-company-owned-by-bills-friend/

And she looks like a blond Paula Jones.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #552 on: May 13, 2016, 07:36:34 PM »
Charitable Foundation, eh?  Bill's "friend", eh?

http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/clinton-charity-arranged-2m-pledge-to-company-owned-by-bills-friend/

And she looks like a blond Paula Jones.
No surprise, this is from Fox but there are other sources. I still wonder what happened to the photographs (Bill's buddy Epstein according to some court docs and reports I've seen apparently had some hidden cameras at some of his party houses/islands. But I've yet to see any follow up or more convictions. I wonder if this is how some school teacher became a billionaire money manager? And how/why he was busted but then still friends with so many moneyed or royal interests?)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #553 on: May 16, 2016, 03:37:18 PM »
The Great Triangulator strikes again:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/news/economy/hillary-bill-clinton-economic-job-growth/

Hillary is as likely to put "Bill in charge of the economy" as she is to accept blame for Benghazi, apologize for breaking the law with her personal server, acknowledge she had Vince Foster rubbed out, etc., etc.

This is cynicism at its most marvelous; she dangles Bill and the idea of harking back to the economic success of the 90's (you know, when he gave the country away with the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, and signing off on the Glass-Steagall repeal...) so that HRC haters will give a second thought to holding their noses and pulling Eva Peron's lever.   

There is no way the "First Gentleman" gets anywhere near the West Wing.  If anything, maybe she hires a bunch of lusty, busty young interns to turn the East Room into Bubba's Brothel so he is far too "occupied" to steal one lumen of her spotlight.

Indictments, anyone?

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #554 on: May 16, 2016, 03:52:00 PM »
The Great Triangulator strikes again:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/news/economy/hillary-bill-clinton-economic-job-growth/

Hillary is as likely to put "Bill in charge of the economy" as she is to accept blame for Benghazi, apologize for breaking the law with her personal server, acknowledge she had Vince Foster rubbed out, etc., etc.

This is cynicism at its most marvelous; she dangles Bill and the idea of harking back to the economic success of the 90's (you know, when he gave the country away with the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, and signing off on the Glass-Steagall repeal...) so that HRC haters will give a second thought to holding their noses and pulling Eva Peron's lever.   

There is no way the "First Gentleman" gets anywhere near the West Wing.  If anything, maybe she hires a bunch of lusty, busty young interns to turn the East Room into Bubba's Brothel so he is far too "occupied" to steal one lumen of her spotlight.

Indictments, anyone?

Bill Clinton was far from perfect but he is one of the best politician/economists I've ever seen (his undergraduate degree is in economics.)  He was too influenced by the Washington Consensus (as was nearly every other politician and economist) but after the Battle in Seattle, he was also one of the first to start questioning it.

Some people incorrectly say that Bill Clinton was merely lucky to be President at the time the internet went mainstream.  This is a little odd, not because it isn't true, but because there are major technological developments that occur with every President.  For instance, during Satan Ronnie's time, the personal computer not only came into widespread use, but so did word processors, spread sheets and databases (and the ability to link those programs together).  Spread sheets revolutionized the accounting industry, which is far from an insignificant part of the economy.  Yet, I never hear anybody say that Satan Ronnie got lucky that he was President when the personal computer came into the mainstream.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #555 on: May 16, 2016, 05:48:45 PM »
Some people incorrectly say that Bill Clinton was merely lucky to be President at the time the internet went mainstream. 

Yet, I never hear anybody say that Satan Ronnie got lucky that he was President when the personal computer came into the mainstream.

Clinton's primary contributions to the economy were the double-whammy of both NAFTA and the Gramm Leach Bliley Act.  Both were nuclear time bombs that didn't blow up in the face of the American family and worker until Clinton Inc had booked their first $20 or 30 million from the Wall St grift.  I also well remember the common joke about Clinton's 20 million new jobs; "Yeah...I got three of 'em." 

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #556 on: May 16, 2016, 06:07:50 PM »

Clinton's primary contributions to the economy were the double-whammy of both NAFTA and the Gramm Leach Bliley Act.  Both were nuclear time bombs that didn't blow up in the face of the American family and worker until Clinton Inc had booked their first $20 or 30 million from the Wall St grift.  I also well remember the common joke about Clinton's 20 million new jobs; "Yeah...I got three of 'em."
Reagan campaigned on free trade, including North American free trade.  He negotiated a free trade pact with then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, also a conservative.  Bush I continued the negotiations for NAFTA in earnest, and he signed the documents in 1992.  Bill Clinton was responsible for getting it through the House and Senate - in both cases with greater support from Republicans than Democrats.  It was, is, and remains the product of the three conservative governing parties of the three participating countries at the time.  Clinton just followed through on previously agreed commitments of Reagan and Bush.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/11/em371-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm


Nafta signing - where is Clinton?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Salinas_de_Gortari#Economic_policy


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #557 on: May 16, 2016, 07:19:29 PM »
Bill Clinton was responsible for getting it through the House and Senate
Nafta signing - where is Clinton?

That's the ceremonial post-negotiation signing.  Clinton signed the enabling legislation following Senate approval and after jamming it down the throat of Dems who opposed it, and he did it with labor in full revolt.  He could have opposed it or modified it.  Didn't.  He was, after all, the first President from Walmart. He also granted China Most Favored Nation status and signed the big China Trade Bill that opened the door to WTO membership in Bush'e first year.  Clinton, the economic and trade genius, said it would be a "win-win" deal.  Maybe win-win is Chinese for "bend over, m-f er"

Clinton Inc. is interested only in job quantity, not quality.  Three minimum wage no future jobs, with the holders on public assistance, get a better unemployment report for a politician than one  $40/hr welder or tool maker's job.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #558 on: May 16, 2016, 11:00:58 PM »
That's the ceremonial post-negotiation signing.  Clinton signed the enabling legislation following Senate approval and after jamming it down the throat of Dems who opposed it, and he did it with labor in full revolt.  He could have opposed it or modified it.  Didn't.  He was, after all, the first President from Walmart. He also granted China Most Favored Nation status and signed the big China Trade Bill that opened the door to WTO membership in Bush'e first year.  Clinton, the economic and trade genius, said it would be a "win-win" deal.  Maybe win-win is Chinese for "bend over, m-f er"

Clinton Inc. is interested only in job quantity, not quality.  Three minimum wage no future jobs, with the holders on public assistance, get a better unemployment report for a politician than one  $40/hr welder or tool maker's job.

That's not correct.  There were labor and environmental side accords negotiated to coincide with NAFTA under Bill Clinton.  Jean Chretien also got a couple things when he got elected dealing with, I believe, anti dumping or cultural protections and energy and or water security.

I don't know what exactly is in any of these agreements.  I'm not a trade lawyer so I wouldn't really understand them anyway.

Clinton's Presidency was also the last time that income inequality declined in the United States as those in the bottom two quintiles saw real wage gains.

If you really think Rapist Trump gives a rat's ass about either the working poor or the unemployed you may well be the stupidest person on the planet.  The only person Rapist Trump cares about is Rapist Trump.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #559 on: May 17, 2016, 12:41:25 PM »
I'm not sure if you care about realities on the ground. But I spend a lot of time in Baja Norte. There are maquiladoras, farms and organic greenhouses that have all sprung up since NAFTA. Their products are shipped to the U.S.

 From a middle-class American viewpoint they are shitty jobs at shitty wages. Backbreaking work in the fields and a few steps above sweatshops. Jobs that Americans hire illegal aliens to do.

But here they are considered good jobs and are building a Mexican middle class. Now instead of having to sneak across the border to do these jobs they stay here. And lots of them now take this money from their decent wages and take their kids to Legoland and Disneyland and shop in U.S. malls. As well as enjoying tourist spots in Mexico that previously only Americans could afford.

I can't speak to all the economic permutations of NAFTA but this an everyday reality here I see all the time


Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #560 on: May 17, 2016, 02:05:52 PM »
I'm not sure if you care about realities on the ground. But I spend a lot of time in Baja Norte. There are maquiladoras, farms and organic greenhouses that have all sprung up since NAFTA. Their products are shipped to the U.S.

 From a middle-class American viewpoint they are shitty jobs at shitty wages. Backbreaking work in the fields and a few steps above sweatshops. Jobs that Americans hire illegal aliens to do.

But here they are considered good jobs and are building a Mexican middle class. Now instead of having to sneak across the border to do these jobs they stay here. And lots of them now take this money from their decent wages and take their kids to Legoland and Disneyland and shop in U.S. malls. As well as enjoying tourist spots in Mexico that previously only Americans could afford.

I can't speak to all the economic permutations of NAFTA but this an everyday reality here I see all the time

Those types of benefits of NAFTA are definitely positive. Moving whole factories such as Ford trucks and Carrier Air Conditioning are detrimental to our country.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #561 on: May 17, 2016, 03:15:15 PM »
This is why I will never vote for her. And you'll never hear the media talking about this. Even if she uses the bullcrap of being an attorney and had to take the case (which I doubt) one of her talking points for defending this rapist was that SHE (the 12 year old rape victim) was promiscuous and partly to blame for being raped.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/234515/former-12-year-old-rape-victim-hillary-clinton-daniel-greenfield

Where is the media scrutiny on Hillary and this story? All victims of rape deserve to be believed unless they are accusing Bill Clinton or the person Hillary is defending.

Hillary, like all trial attorneys, talks a lot about striving for justice by playing their role in our adversarial justice system, but that's not what drives them.

Justice may or may not result to some extent from their actions, but often the result is injustice because attorneys are almost invariably "in it to win it." Their goal is to make their version of the facts the accepted facts of the case, not to go wherever the truth and evidence lead them. It's a constant compromise of morality and ethics which sabotages any commitment to seeking fairness and justice.

Hillary the politician can be relied upon to treat the public as her client, so I don't doubt that she would work hard for us. What I doubt is the authenticity of her so-called core beliefs and values. Blaming rape victims in court for their fate on one day and then turning around and complaining about their mistreatment the next day tells me that her only real core conviction is to do what's best for Hillary.

She can talk all she wants about how she "only played her role" in this case or others. She made a choice to do what she did and where she sees the public interest, I only see self-interest. Of course, the same is true for all lawyers who act as she does.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #562 on: May 17, 2016, 06:39:25 PM »
Those types of benefits of NAFTA are definitely positive. Moving whole factories such as Ford trucks and Carrier Air Conditioning are detrimental to our country.
I agree. But it's not the Mexicans moving them. It's not NAFTA moving them. It's American corporation owners. Who held a lot of influence on the treaty draft

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #563 on: May 17, 2016, 08:10:39 PM »
I agree. But it's not the Mexicans moving them. It's not NAFTA moving them. It's American corporation owners. Who held a lot of influence on the treaty draft
They can move them only because of NAFTA and GATT.  NAFTA should include a wage structure so companies can't move a $30/hr American job to Ciudad Juarez at $3/hr, ship the product into the US at the same old price, and pocket the difference.  I lived and represented my compamy in Canada in the 80s and they scrutinized every word and comma in trade agreements, and everything favors Canadians. Even the provincial govts vetted trade policy.  Here its all done in virtual secret..."fast track" and all. 

The guy in charge of getting the best deal for American business and workers in Clinton's GATT negotiations was Mickey Kantor, a pal of Hillary, major CA Dem fundraiser, and LAWYER whose law firm represented migrant workers. He had not one day of experience outside lawyering and politics.  Guess how many political fund raisers were the chief negotiators for the Japanese, Chinese, or German.

PS -  the reason Toyota and other Japanese car makers built plants in the US was because, before CLinton, the US Omnibus Trade Act allowed Reagan and Bush to threaten up 100% tariffs.  Voila, Toyotas from Tennessee.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #564 on: May 23, 2016, 12:27:56 PM »
Latest WSJ/NBC poll shows HMH's lead over Trump has collapsed from a double digit lead last month to a few pts within the MOE.  I don't think Trump is beating her so much as she's finally being perceived for the unimaginative '70s wonk she is.  Her much ballyhooed experience is no indicator of capability; its only a sort of seniority. 

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #565 on: May 23, 2016, 05:15:45 PM »
I saw someone at a Hillary rally waving a sign that said "TUNA for Hillary."  A woman friend of mine says it is an obvious reference to lesbianism, but I thought it might be Transexual Undertakers of North America.  Does anybody know?

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #566 on: May 23, 2016, 05:18:27 PM »
I agree. But it's not the Mexicans moving them. It's not NAFTA moving them. It's American corporation owners. Who held a lot of influence on the treaty draft

Yep and they are the ones that should be punished.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #567 on: May 23, 2016, 10:46:00 PM »
This report can't be true because Hillary said in one of her debates that the border is secure. Either that or the report is accurate and Hillary is a lying piece of crap.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection set a new FY2016 apprehension record in April, catching a grand total of 38,135 illegal aliens over the 30-day period – an average of about 1,271 per day.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/border-apprehensions-surge-past-fy2014-numbers

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #568 on: May 23, 2016, 11:51:04 PM »
This report can't be true because Hillary said in one of her debates that the border is secure. Either that or the report is accurate and Hillary is a lying piece of crap.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection set a new FY2016 apprehension record in April, catching a grand total of 38,135 illegal aliens over the 30-day period – an average of about 1,271 per day.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/border-apprehensions-surge-past-fy2014-numbers
Don't worry they can "spin" this. "See we are catching more" or simply, like with economic and employment data (and war data) "readjust the numbers." Also, important to point out, these are the ones caught. Most aren't.

Re: Hillary Clinton
« Reply #569 on: May 25, 2016, 11:40:17 AM »
Today the Obama-appointed independent IG on Clinton's email released its report concluding that HMH and her staff of policy academicians f*cked up big time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html