logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Hillary Clinton (predictions and retrospective)., A Debate on her Credibility, Temperament, and Track Record.
net2007
post Nov 3 2016, 07:10 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I believed that Hillary Clinton would win this election short of an FBI upset, which to the astonishment of many we're now seeing. The question now is how much support will she lose and how fast? It's late in the election cycle and we've seen record-breaking early voting this year, but if she does win I believe she'll do so by default. I want to share my perspective on this, then hear from others. I'm sure some of the Democrats here will disagree.

Polls indicate that she's been the most unlikable candidate with the exception Trump, Hillary's negatives are also 12+ points higher than any Democratic nominee since 1992...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/negative-views...ning-1467021604

With the reopening of the FBI investigation those negatives are rising and Donald Trump is closing the gap in the polls. I wouldn't be surprised if she squeaks by but if she's given the responsibility of leading this country, will she be what America needs? Personally, I don't think so. There are very good reasons why her negatives are so high.

The lying is not a right wing conspiracy. I don't know what will happen with the email scandal with certainty, but I can say that this type of thing dates back with her, confirmed and documented information that's not hard to find. For example, going back to the Iraq war is very revealing.

Hillary claims she supported the war because she didn't know that Bush was going to invade Iraq, yet he was very clear about his intentions from the beginning. The following was stated by Hillary on November 28, 2003 (One year after her vote for [H.J. Res. 114], a resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.)

Hillary Clinton...

QUOTE
"From my perspective, if we don't stay the course here, if we don't put the time in, then I'm not sure that we can count on the kind of success that the Iraqi people and the American people hope for."


Afterward, she claimed she did not know what Bush's intentions were, yet the resolution is so easy to understand that there's no way it could have been misinterpreted. Here's a Wiki link that list all those who voted against/for the Resolution, and a description of the Resolution.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Here is the Resolution itself.....

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hjre...hjres114enr.pdf

So what kinds of things are in this Resolution? It's pretty clear even from the title of the resolution what it's about.

QUOTE
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Throughout the resolution it's very clear and specific, the segment below states a bit about what power the resolution granted our President...

QUOTE
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.ĚThe President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.


More can be read on the PDF.

Seems simple and straight forward, yet she claims she expected Bush to use diplomacy before going to war, being her only reason for funding the bill. However just before casting her vote on this she voted against the Carl Levin amendment which was an amendment that would have required more diplomatic measures to be taken by our president before committing to war. This can be read about here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...ro_b_49733.html

Quote...

QUOTE
"In an effort to justify her initial support of the war, Hillary has repeatedly insisted that her vote to authorize Bush to use force was actually a vote for diplomacy, that she didn't really believe we would go to war, and that the president misused that authority by giving short shrift to additional diplomatic methods. The authors turn a fan on this smokescreen and show that this claim is contradicted by Hillary's own voting record, pointing out that right before she cast her yes vote on the use of force, she voted against an amendment put forth by Carl Levin that would have required the president to actively pursue diplomacy before going to war."


If it seems redundant to go back to the Iraq war, I think I'm doing it because a lot of people are associating her credibility with this email scandal, and if she's somehow cleared perhaps she's credible. While the email scandal is an important issue, one doesn't have to look far back to find evidence that she's a genuinely dishonest person.

If you're looking at the email scandal, apparently the FBI is already releasing information that's going to hurt her. We're hearing about corruption with the Clinton Foundation, and FBI documentation on the mishandling of classified information was just released...

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hi...t-01-of-04/view

This is now being spread on social media sites like Twitter, Reddit, and Youtube so there seems to be a great deal happening at once. Also, the fact that much of the information coming out on her is tied in with emails found on Anthony Weiner's computer, who was also involved in sex scandals involving underage girls, adds fuel to an already hot burning fire. I believe his activities are his responsibility but it certainly doesn't help her to have his name come up in all of this.

So there's all of that, then there's Hillary's temperament. Temperament is one of Hillary's key arguments to combat Trump, but does she have a good one? Though she's more polished than Trump, she can be insulting in her own way. She smirks and smiles her way through debates and other public appearances, giving the impression that she doesn't take her opponents seriously, that can easily be seen as disrespectful but it's also careless on her part. At times she's also lumped conservatives together, maintaining an Us vs. Them mentality that was already in overdrive. To break free of this it may very well take someone who isn't an extreme partisan. It's been a while since we've had someone with success gaining substantial support from the opposing political party, or who has maintained a positive approval rating so we're obviously doing something wrong.

To reiterate there's a lot of talk about the temperament of Trump and those who support him. I'm not a Trump supporter and I agree that he has a bad temperament much of the time, along with some of his followers. However, this type of thing goes both ways and has for a long time. Politics has the bad reputation of bringing out the worst in otherwise well rounded and intelligent individuals. As an example, I'm active in the scientific community, I research and debate astrophysics, rocketry, and various other space sciences. To talk about someone I know a lot about there's Astrophysicist Robert Zubrin who went as far as developing a plan that could get us to Mars, using existing technology, within 10 years. He's also good at underlining why space exploration is important so he's still someone I have a degree of respect for, but he's also a good example of what I'm mentioning here. An otherwise intelligent and often eloquent person who's been influenced by the divisive tone set by the media and politicians. He's a Hillary supporter who's throwing out rude remarks, often to his own followers, (Those who support Trump to be specific). In doing so he's dividing his followers on a political party basis.

There are easier examples to find of Hillary or Hillary supporters being divisive, but for those interested, his facebook page is linked below. It could take some looking back to find him commenting on specific followers but the quotes are there if you look back, along with more common ones of him grouping Trump followers together or saying something typical of a bad media pundit.

https://www.facebook.com/robert.zubrin.1?fref=ts

At times Hillary supporters put this off on Trump setting a divisive tone but, as they say, it takes two to tango. If you believe that Hillary is a solid candidate or the "better alternative" I want to hear your opinion though. It's a tight race now and it's nearing the end of this election cycle so I'm hoping for this to be a retrospective on Hillary Clinton. Any predictions on how she'll perform as president are also welcome.

Questions for Debate...

1. Does Hillary Clinton have the credibility to be President?
2. Does Hillary Clinton have the temperament to be President?
3. Does Hillary Clinton have a good enough track record to be President? (answer 1 - 3 together if desired)
4. Why do you think she won the Democratic nomination and maintained a lead over Donald Trump?
5. In light of the recent FBI investigation do you feel she'll maintain her lead and defeat Trump?
6. If she becomes our next president do you believe she'll survive her first term without impeachment?


This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 3 2016, 07:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2016, 02:33 PM
Post #21


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,342
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Tomorrow is the big day! I feel a little like a kid at Christmas because nobody's at all certain how this thing will turn out, and the stakes seem to be really high this time.

Mrs. P, assuming the story about military tech is true, what role does a Secretary of State have in the military procurement process? Maybe the story is about when she was a US Senator, maybe on a procurement committee? Anyway, if the US military had wanted the tech, it would have gotten the tech. Ergo, my doubt that this ever really happened. Looks way too much like bad thinking colored with an a priori desired conclusion.

Or if it did happen, I have serious doubts that the tech was indeed superior -- the white elephant idea. I do have some experience with the Beltway Banditos from my years spent near DC, keeping the LED lights on for retired military brass. Lovely bunch of technical ID10Ts. Yes, yell louder at the DBA -- that'll fix the corrupted files. But otherwise nice enough fellas full of stories.

Anyway, what does a Beltway Bandito do with rejected tech? Sell it to the ME despots? Sounds good all around.

Our ballot had a question on whether unaffiliated voters could participate in party-specific primaries, which are all of them. While that would make primary voting easier for a lot of people, I voted NO because being unaffiliated is a choice to not be involved in party politics. Ergo, no primary vote for you! Gad, take a freaking stand.

Heh, back when I was unaffiliated, it was to avoid junk mail from the Democratic Party. Never gave a thought to primary voting or messing with registration to somehow influence the outcome of primaries. But I did know a local journalist who tried it once and decided it was way too much trouble for very little, like zippo, in return. He even felt a little guilty for having tried to game the system -- nothing that a beer couldn't allay.

Tomorrow we decide if it's going to be Trump or HRC! Millions of votes will be cast. Early returns will be broadcast. There will be nail biting and freaking out. YouTube will be ablaze with recently uploaded clips. Russians will discover that, heyyyyy, you mean not all computers are connected to the Internet?!

Yes Vlad, I know that isn't fair. Tough man boobies. Your trolling minions have been called out too. Oh well, nice try laugh.gif ID10T.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 7 2016, 02:49 PM
Post #22


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2016, 10:33 AM) *
Tomorrow is the big day! I feel a little like a kid at Christmas because nobody's at all certain how this thing will turn out, and the stakes seem to be really high this time.


AM, if this reminds you of being a little kid at Christmas I am so very very sorry. Mom grew up on an impoverished farm in Italy, and at Christmas the children would each receive a little orange in their boot. They'd wait all year for this gift. And I thought that was kind of a sad story.
What did you get...tortured on Christmas, or something?
tongue.gif

The military would love those planes, AM.
There's only a certain amount of money and when you have security obligations around the world only so much can go into that. When you look at the military budget, which everyone points to as a big number, it's important to note that less than half of that budget goes toward operational expenses (what the average person thinks of when they see the words "defense budget").** Congress holds the purse strings and they also have defense contractors in their areas and it's in their interest to keep those factories running and they run fastest and best when they ca sell kit to whomever will buy it. It's the Secretary of State's job to approve or not.

**This is also why you'll see millions of dollars in new construction (brings jobs in) on bases where there isn't enough money for the pilots to train (for the actual purpose of the base).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 7 2016, 02:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2016, 12:12 AM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



6. If she becomes our next president do you believe she'll survive her first term without impeachment?
Yes. For the very reasons cited in the following piece, the very first paragraph of which reads ...

"Tomorrow is the only trial Hillary Clinton will ever face for her crimes."

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 8 2016, 07:12 AM
Post #24


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2016, 10:33 AM) *
Tomorrow is the big day! I feel a little like a kid at Christmas because nobody's at all certain how this thing will turn out, and the stakes seem to be really high this time.

Mrs. P, assuming the story about military tech is true, what role does a Secretary of State have in the military procurement process? Maybe the story is about when she was a US Senator, maybe on a procurement committee? Anyway, if the US military had wanted the tech, it would have gotten the tech. Ergo, my doubt that this ever really happened. Looks way too much like bad thinking colored with an a priori desired conclusion.

Or if it did happen, I have serious doubts that the tech was indeed superior -- the white elephant idea. I do have some experience with the Beltway Banditos from my years spent near DC, keeping the LED lights on for retired military brass. Lovely bunch of technical ID10Ts. Yes, yell louder at the DBA -- that'll fix the corrupted files. But otherwise nice enough fellas full of stories.

Anyway, what does a Beltway Bandito do with rejected tech? Sell it to the ME despots? Sounds good all around.

Our ballot had a question on whether unaffiliated voters could participate in party-specific primaries, which are all of them. While that would make primary voting easier for a lot of people, I voted NO because being unaffiliated is a choice to not be involved in party politics. Ergo, no primary vote for you! Gad, take a freaking stand.

Heh, back when I was unaffiliated, it was to avoid junk mail from the Democratic Party. Never gave a thought to primary voting or messing with registration to somehow influence the outcome of primaries. But I did know a local journalist who tried it once and decided it was way too much trouble for very little, like zippo, in return. He even felt a little guilty for having tried to game the system -- nothing that a beer couldn't allay.

Tomorrow we decide if it's going to be Trump or HRC! Millions of votes will be cast. Early returns will be broadcast. There will be nail biting and freaking out. YouTube will be ablaze with recently uploaded clips. Russians will discover that, heyyyyy, you mean not all computers are connected to the Internet?!

Yes Vlad, I know that isn't fair. Tough man boobies. Your trolling minions have been called out too. Oh well, nice try laugh.gif ID10T.


For me election cycles are usually exciting, this year it's a combination of being interested but discouraged. I'm concerned that someone will win tomorrow if that makes sense.

Hillary jumped up in the polls again by a point or two, giving her a little breathing room. It's still too close to call but she's favored to win. If she does, do you have any concern with her? Is she the one you would have liked to see get the Democratic nomination?

Good luck BTW.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 24th, 2018 - 11:29 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.