The Next President of the United States: II

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I invite anybody to refute anything in my post.

We can get into the post-event stuff in a bit, and we will see that while criticism is legitimate, Clinton’s conduct is not nearly as simplistic as people are suggesting. And it is fairly run of the mill in either case.

But first, our (Bis and mine) primary point. Anybody want to try that? What we’re criticizing has been hawked many, many times here.[/quote]

It’s not about refuting specifics.[/quote]

It is. The specifics add up to the conclusion. If none of them are taken down, neither is the whole.

[quote]
It’s about your implicit pass-granting. Your self-perceived BushLiedPeopleDied trump card.[/quote]

I’m not granting any passes, and my point about Bush has absolutely nothing to do with perception. The events and decisions that preceded war in Iraq are a matter of public record and objective fact. There is no question about the evidence I’ve offered many times here before, and that evidence settles the matter without ambiguity.

That the Bush Administration fumbled, misled, and lied in justifying OIF is more clear and better evidenced than anything relating to Clinton and Benghazi. The bigger difference, of course, is that the former led deliberately to the worst foreign policy disaster in memory, with enormous tangible and quantifiable and ongoing to this very day and minute and second harm to American security interests. That the Right is hysterical over the infinitely more minor of these cases is evidence only of its increasingly severe and clownish detachment from reality. The parallels are of course too much for any reasonable person to resist, and they serve to put into perspective a scandal that has lost that quality a hundred thousand times over.

More importantly, my primary point (and Bis’, it seemed) has to do with the “she let people die” bullshit. I’d love somebody to give that a try, because I know a bunch of people hereabouts believe it.

She is a despicable human being whether or not Benghazi ever happened; it’s just one more smoke plume in her and her husband’s malevolent careers of forest fires.

I will say this much: I wouldn’t want to stand before god* as a Clinton and go through my moral history with him line by line.

• Figuratively speaking, of course.

[smh_23]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
smh,

I’m not disagreeing with Bismark, or you regarding the security details (the former as you put it). I don’t know enough about that to comment.

I’m curious if you think the investigation has changed anything for her politically, specifically the lying (latter) accusation. I don’t think so.

Edit: Changed who the post is addressed to. Misread the long above post as from Zeb, it was from smh.[/quote]

Yeah, I should mention that I wrote that post before I saw yours and then sort of just pasted it in as a reply. Kind of sloppy on my part.

Do I think it changes things for her? Yeah, I think it has, though I doubt anything more/less is going to come of the continuing hearings. I think that between this and the emails and the Russia-Canada Uranium thing (which is far more suspicious and yet somehow not talked about), she will have a harder fight toward positive numbers in the general election polls.

The real question is this: Will Hillary’s sliminess matter more than the ludicrous forces that have Trump on top of the GOP? In other words, if Hillary is a pretty bad candidate, will the Republicans, not to be outdone, manage to somehow elevate/create a horrendous one?

[Aggv]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
it’s just one more smoke plume in her and her husband’s malevolent careers of forest fires.[/quote]

It’s priceless irony that women rights groups support hillary while she’s still married to one of the worst sexual predators and philanderers in history.

[Drew1411]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Zeb,

I’m not disagreeing with Bismark, or you regarding the security details (the former as you put it). I don’t know enough about that to comment.

I’m curious if you think the investigation has changed anything for her politically, specifically the lying (latter) accusation. I don’t think so. [/quote]

From what I have seen of her support, where it comes from and why she receives it I would say that she has not lost any of her base. The problem for Hillary is what it has always been from the beginning. The more people see her the less they like her. That she is sitting in front of a Benghazi hearing answering questions about things she may have done wrong doesn’t help expand her support. But I will say this, if you are a strong Hillary supporter nothing short of her pulling a gun and knocking over a bank is going to change your mind. [/quote]

Agree. True believers (on either side) don’t change.

But that doesn’t mean she will be able to pull the big numbers that she needs to win. Start out with the premise that people don’t like her, high negatives, this has been proven in multiple polls. The only one that is close to her negatives and in some groups exceeds them is Donald Trump. Can Trump lower his negatives? I have no idea, he seems hell bent on being petty and vindictive, not the sign of a man who is going to actually take his campaign to the next level. Yet on the same token not someone who will change with the weather like Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary on the other hand will say or do anything in order to improve her poll numbers that’s a better approach than Trump has right? The only problem is that people are wise to her approach and they don’t like it. They know she’s not real. She’s whatever she needs to be on any particular day. Let’s say she’s dishonest to the core. In fact, let’s further say that she has no real core. It’s a simple lust for power. Those who lover her can’t see that, but there are not enough of them. And in this election cycle people have really had enough of politicians saying and doing whatever they can whether they believe it or not and that is why Trump still has appeal (although I think he is faltering for other reasons).

While she didn’t get crushed in the Benghazi hearings enough came out to keep those away that she needs. Not enough to kill her chances of getting the nomination. After all it’s not like she has any real competition. At this point I will stick to my months old prediction, Hillary Clinton will not become the next President of the United States.

I have seen nothing yet that she has done which could possibly take her that far.

I agree with you. She will be the nominee and is a beatable candidate, except don’t have the same confidence that Clinton won’t win. I’ve heard your arguments, but seeing Trump at the top of the GOP does not inspire my confidence in their ability to win. Time will tell, it is still early.

[smh_23]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You call Bush a fuck-up for the deaths of 9/11, then you say Hillary is not a fuck-up for the deaths of Benghazi, and you base this on the fact that the former had many more deaths than the latter.[/quote]

No, I have never called Bush a fuck-up for the deaths of 9/11. I said exactly the opposite – that he wasn’t to blame, just as Clinton wasn’t to blame for the deaths of four people working for her agency in one of the most dangerous regions on the planet. I said this explicitly in the post you quoted:

[quote]
Speaking of that stupid public figure vis-a-vis dead Americans, does Bush deserve blame for 9/11? No. OK, then, “four people died” is no longer a self-contained criticism of Hillary Clinton.[/quote]