2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I support Hillary in part because I remember what she suffered in the '90s as First Lady. The Right was incensed that she DARE try to influence policy. They tried to get her to fit the mold of the archetypal first lady, who was the ultimate housewife. That's not who she ever was. I loved that she was able to have her own career after Bill served his two terms.

For a woman, she's a bit brash and that ALWAYS draws criticism. Again, I respect her a ton for what she's had to put up with as a candidate.

Omg, it was so nasty back in the 90's for Hillary & Bill. I used to listen to right wing talk radio (to"yell" back at it) at that time (there was very little liberal radio talkers).

President Clinton was considered too "feminine" a president be cause he didn't over emphasize The Military, cared about more "women orientated" issues like education, etc How he displayed empathy.. There were callers genuinely talking about talking The Vote away from women because they helped get him elected !

And when Hillary responded to a question early on as First Lady that I can't quite remember but she answered, "what, do they expect me to stay home and back cookies!?"
Oh, the howling that went on over that!
:yikes:
 
President Clinton was considered too "feminine" a president be cause he didn't over emphasize The Military, cared about more "women orientated" issues like education, etc How he displayed empathy.. There were callers genuinely talking about talking The Vote away from women because they helped get him elected !

On the one hand, I'm sadly not surprised that that sort of stupidity is still out there, but on the other hand...yikes :|.

(BTW, missed the chance to say it before when you popped in, but hi :wave:!)
 
Last edited:
I havendecided whether I hink Hillary is really "shadey" or not. I do know some of her positions may be too centrist for me, but I'm intrigued in what one poster (?? womanfish) said about her voting the same as Bernie about 93% of the time. There are other things that she's done that I really like!

I hope to seriously volunteer iin Oct for the General Election for her lovecElizabeth Warren a very good choice!
Cory Booker might be good, too. Though he may be a person who seeks too much comprise.

I believe you have to pick your fights. Comprise on some things, but not on others. It can became a tricky path to walk.
 
Exactly. I have no problem with the fact people support Bernie, I totally get why he holds appeal for people, and I like the guy as well. I agree with his stances, and I appreciate the idealism and hope his campaign has inspired in people. I like seeing people genuinely enthused and passionate like this, and I hope the enthusiasm and passion he's inspired carries over to getting some really good policy and legislation passed, be it on a local, state, or federal level.

But he didn't win the nomination. Hilary did. And I'm going to support her. That doesn't mean I automatically agree with every single thing she's said or done, that doesn't mean I think she's the best Democratic candidate we've ever had, that doesn't mean I can't understand why some people are wary of her.

But I'm sure as hell NOT voting for Trump, not voting at all is not an option to me, and I don't want to write in a third-party candidate. And I believe she's got the experience and knowledge necessary to do the job, and won't drive our country into the ground. I don't care if she's "unlikable", I don't care if she's a "bitch", I don't care if she's had her awkward public moments, etc., etc. I just want her to do her job and try and fight on behalf of the issues I care about, and so long as she can do that, we're good.

:up:
 
So are Powell and Rice dishonest and untrustworthy?



Doesn't have much to do with being honest does it?


It's important not to conflate "personal email account" with "private email server." There're meaningful differences. Hillary isn't the first to use the former, but she is absolutely the first to use the latter.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's important not to conflate "personal email account" with "private email server." There're meaningful differences. Hillary isn't the first to use the former, but she is absolutely the first to use the latter.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Sure, but from a security aspect, which is apparently what this is about(which is actually bs), what's the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Sure, but from a security aspect, which is apparently what this is about(which is actually bs), what's the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I agree with you. The security angle is not the best angle. Even though I would assume that corporations who make their livelihood off of hosting email servers are likely somewhat more secure than Hillary's.

I think the real concern is the motivation for having a private email server. Seems likely that the ability to permanently delete emails is one possible motivation.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think the real concern is the motivation for having a private email server. Seems likely that the ability to permanently delete emails is one possible motivation.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Imagine Vice President Cheney used a computer on a daily basis and operated a private server in Wyoming from 2000-2008, and conducted all his government business on it.

And then serious questions about his email practices come up. Tens of thousands of missing emails, hacking rumors, classification issues.

You can see where I'm going here, what the reaction might be ;)
 
Also, if this is the kind of information contained in the emails she *didn't* delete, it's fun to imagine what might be in those that she did:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/

CNN; said:
A major political donor to the Clintons and other top Democrats was selected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on a key State Department intelligence board in 2011, despite having no clear background in the area, according to emails released this week.
...
Rajiv Fernando has donated $9,400 to Clinton's two White House bids -- first her 2008 run and again this year -- and has been a generous donor to Democrats running for the House and Senate and to President Barack Obama.

Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, has also been a prolific donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $1 million to the organization, according to its website.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. The security angle is not the best angle. Even though I would assume that corporations who make their livelihood off of hosting email servers are likely somewhat more secure than Hillary's.

I think the real concern is the motivation for having a private email server. Seems likely that the ability to permanently delete emails is one possible motivation.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Or it could be that she's like the rest of us and she ends up bringing work home with her. It's not like she can send an email using her iPhone. I'm not even sure if remoting in is an option for them.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Or it could be that she's like the rest of us and she ends up bringing work home with her. It's not like she can send an email using her iPhone. I'm not even sure if remoting in is an option for them.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Come, now. I'm likely supporting Clinton at the end of the day, too, but is the most reasonable answer "this controversy is because Clinton just works too hard for the American people, dammit!" ?
 
Over the last decade of her public life, Hillary Clinton has given us every reason to believe she's a morally...gray individual, at best.

She's also a pretty decent politician and the best option we have, right now.

Both things can be true at once.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Come, now. I'm likely supporting Clinton at the end of the day, too, but is the most reasonable answer "this controversy is because Clinton just works too hard for the American people, dammit!" ?


Because no one has ever made a mountain out of a molehill to bring down a Clinton?

All I'm saying is that using your own email isn't always some great conspiracy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Because no one has ever made a mountain out of a molehill to bring down a Clinton?

All I'm saying is that using your own email isn't always some great conspiracy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Server. Your own email server. There's too much obfuscation on this particular point, and it really makes a difference.

Agreed about the GOP making mountains of molehills. They've fucked themselves here, to an extent -- the boy who cried whitewater, and whatnot.

But just because people have manufactured scandals about the Clintons doesn't mean that there can now never be an *actual* scandal about the Clintons


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Server. Your own email server. There's too much obfuscation on this particular point, and it really makes a difference.

Agreed about the GOP making mountains of molehills. They've fucked themselves here, to an extent -- the boy who cried whitewater, and whatnot.

But just because people have manufactured scandals about the Clintons doesn't mean that there can now never be an *actual* scandal about the Clintons


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Yes I know, I'm sure as hell hope she's not using a gmail account.

I agree, it could very well be something serious. But it's not looking like it.

But I t won't stop Trump. I'm sure his opening line in the debate will be something like "what about those emails you sent Vince Foster in Benghazi?"


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Her emails killed Vince Foster


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
If there was something damning about Hillary's deleted emails, we would know about it by now.


I find the idea that she appointed an apparently entirely unqualified donor to an intelligence committee to be pretty damning


Election 2016:

Guy Who Clearly Isn't Doing Math
Guy Who Is Clearly a Bigot
Woman Who Is Clearly Corrupt
 
I find the idea that she appointed an apparently entirely unqualified donor to an intelligence committee to be pretty damning


Election 2016:

Guy Who Clearly Isn't Doing Math
Guy Who Is Clearly a Bigot
Woman Who Is Clearly Corrupt

Not as damning as electing an entirely unqualified person to rule the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom