dagblog - Comments for "Here’s Why Hillary Won’t Allow Her Corporate Speeches to Be Published"

You overestimate your

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:08:23 +0000

You overestimate your intellectual honesty, and that' the biggest hurdle in debating you, presuming you don't *actually* have short-term memory loss.

PS to add - I do believe you're *earnest*, but that's a different quality.

There has been plenty of

ocean-kat — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:17:47 +0000

In reply to To be such a nit-picker, you

There has been plenty of criticism of Hillary from her supporters here. Most of us are worried she might be too hawkish. It's been discussed but not to the satisfaction of Sanders supporters. Some of us want a bit more involvement but are worried it will be a bit too much. Some while worrying find the argument that she's a neocon an exaggerated black white assessment. We're not "credited" with our critique since we're at the same time defending her from what we feel is an unwarranted and extreme critique.

Thing is I don't think any critique of Hillary by her supporters will be enough for Sanders supporters. The only critique that will satisfy them is one that ends with our acknowledgement that they're right, she's unqualified to be president, and that we're changing our vote to Sanders.

To be such a nit-picker, you

CVille Dem — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:02:58 +0000

In reply to I wasn't flogging any dead

To be such a nit-picker, you certainly missed the points I was making. You didn't answer the question that was asked. You are completely wrapped up in having people who are Clinton supporters "admit" that she has faults. What you don't get is that Clinton supporters are saying that, warts and all, Hillary (who voted with Bernie 93% of the time when she was a Senator) is someone who can get things done. She has experience on the world stage. She knows how to build a coalition and in fact has a great deal of loyalty from blacks, Latinos, women, and more generally, people who work for a living. A simple googling of her accomplishments would demonstrate that.

What difference does it make that you acknowledge that Bernie should have published his taxes, and that he shouldn't be an NRA shill if the very basic question is left unanswered-- What kind of President would Bernie be? Bernie is completely, totally, and obviously unable, unprepared, and incapable of being a successful or even competent President.

For what it's worth: I wish Hillary hadn't embellished her landing (sniper fire!). I am sorry that her private email server came to light. Did you get that? I am not sorry she had her own server! Why. Because unlike the State Dept ans FBI, they weren't hacked. All of her emails are now available, and I am sorry about that because it is yet one more double standard that she has to endure. Don't even get me started on the Benghazi Circus!

Now, as to your favorite bullshit demand, I am very glad that she will not give you or the GOP the satisfaction of succumbing to yet another double standard to put out transcripts of speeches she has given.

So what if you don't like two things that Sanders did or didn't do? So what if I admit a couple of things that H. Clinton did that in retrospect were mistakes, or even indications that she isn't perfect?

Who would be the best President? That is the effing bottom line!

-- Sanders, who has zero accomplishments under his belt, and cannot get endorsements from people who know him best, because they know he is incapable of getting things done? Sanders, who could have seen his great numbers of primary supporters as an opportunity to join the Democrats and transform the Party. He chose not to. He is a loner, and has no interest in working with the Party that he used to get access. He has done NOTHING for down-candidate Democrats because a) he is keeping his $$ for himself, and b) He isn't, and doesn't like Democrats.

-- Trump, no words necessary?

-- Clinton, who despite the fact that she is human, has well-thought out, and achievable goals that are realistic in this complicated world, and may be more likely, based on the fact that she is helping down-candidates get elected.

So, your continued demands to have Clinton supporters list the faults of our candidate who has won the nomination seem to me to be just pettiness in the face of what really matters.

Nice try Hal, you attempt to

rmrd0000 — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:53:41 +0000

In reply to I wasn't flogging any dead

Nice try Hal, your attempt to get us to go after each other did not work.

What you fail to realize is that for much of the country wage increases will have to be incremental. Hillary stating that the increase would be immediate would be a disaster for parts of the country, Sanders supporters want change now. That is not going to happen.There are reactionaries decimated to inertia. The can obstruct things. Sanders and some of his most ardent supporters are blind to this truth.

Okay O-K. Perhaps you're

HSG — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:26:49 +0000

In reply to I don't think I've been

Okay O-K. Perhaps you're right and I've harped overmuch on her email peccadillo. She's the nominee. I'm prepared to work with you and anybody else who is trying to push her to the left. I do not like the insults, personal slights, and motive questioning that goes on here far too often. I apologize for lumping you in wrongly with others.

I don't think I've been

ocean-kat — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:08:14 +0000

In reply to I expect a measure of

I don't think I've been factually wrong and whether I've been subjectively wrong is a matter of opinion. I've often tried to acknowledge when I make purely subjective arguments. I've tried to back up my subjective opinions with strong arguments

Several people have called sync and wattree's arguments delusional with evidence to support that analysis. I've never called you delusional though perhaps others have. I don't keep score on your arguments with other people.

As I pointed out my critique

ocean-kat — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:59:17 +0000

In reply to No response to my points at

As I pointed out my critique was addressed to lulu. Your response as if it was addressed to you was a non sequitur. That's my response. I know you stated that Sanders should have released his tax returns. That's one of several reasons my critique wasn't addressed to you.

I'm not at all troubled by my posts nor am I troubled by a lack of posts. I've explained why. You of course are free to be troubled by any posts or lack of posts by me. You seem to have this notion that criticizing the candidate one supports makes ones arguments more worthy. It doesn't. I could not possibly care less whether you do or do not critique Sanders. If I criticize Hillary will it make my arguments on Glass/steagle or universal health care suddenly more convincing?

If you're still confused about my views on Hillary's email server and have a deep and abiding need for clarity I suggest you reread my posts on the subject. My views haven't changed.

I expect a measure of

HSG — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:58:38 +0000

In reply to As I pointed out my critique

I expect a measure of intellectual honesty from people - especially those who comment seriously on important matters. If I get something wrong, I recognize my credibility is dependent on 1) acknowledging error and 2) figuring our how not to make the same mistake.

Sadly, this site has become polarized into the Clinton acolytes and the Clinton detractors. This is incredibly dispiriting to me because thedivision makes it impossible for us to work together to solve the very real problems our nation faces. Instead, most here insist not only on the justness of our position but on the moral failings of those who disagree.

This is the worst possible outcome. Instead, to bridge the gap, people of good will need to reach out to each other.

I have tried to do this repeatedly. By contrast, the Clinton people here have almost without exception refused to acknowledge either their specific mistakes or their candidate's and have at the same time insisted those who disagree are delusional, fanatics, mean-spirited, not worth listening to, etc. This is not the way to a better world folks.

I wasn't flogging any dead

HSG — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:27:16 +0000

In reply to

I wasn't flogging any dead horses. I didn't insist that Bernie won or suggest it or argue that he should have won. RMRD brought up this topic when he asked me whether Sanders' failure to win suggests he shouldn't be the candidate. I agreed. He didn't win. Ergo, he shouldn't be the candidate. My question to you: Shouldn't you be criticizing RMRD for flogging dead horses?

No response to my points at

HSG — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:33 +0000

In reply to The way Sanders is handling

No response to my points at all O-K. I wasn't defending Sanders and he's not the nominee. Your criticism of him is itherefore rrelevant to this thread. In any case, his failure to produce his tax returns is far less troubling than Clinton's refusal to divulge her speeches to G-S. Why? Because of Clinton's history of double-speak, parsing language, and cutting backroom deals. She tells us she's against the TPP but she also said she was against the Colombia Free Trade deal and then she cajoled Democrats to support it when she became Secretary of State. So, we have reason to believe she says one thing to average people and another to her financiers. Simply put, we have reason not to trust he based on her history of acceding to Wall Street demands. How exactly do you think Sanders' failure to produce his tax returns reflects a specific problem that may arise in his administration - if there were one?

Also, shouldn't your troubling history of refusing to acknowledge Clinton's obvious mistake when it comes to her email server cause you to question whether your political judgment may be failing you when it comes to her cause?