Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Deleted]

So he doesn't flip flop, but he's all over the place.

Haha.

Methinks u need to research what flip-flopping actually means in the political arena.

Hillary has stood up and clearly stated her position on something and then at a later date has taken the exact opposite position. Thats called flip-flopping. Google "hillary flip flopping"... hell, put it in Youtube. You will see its a clearly accepted fact that Hillary is a flip-flopper, always has been and always will be.

Trump is incoherent and a mess... he has totally different issues.

[Merkava]

All you have is a statistical study that says its unlikely but not impossible to be legit. .

A study that said 1 in 31 Trillion. Tell me that you're willing to believe that she just got lucky and bucked those odds. Please say that.

Edit - Tell me what's more likely, she hit the 1 in 31 Trillion long shot, or, like the evidence suggests, a powerful attorney for the largest employer in Arkansas connected her to a broker who was willing to funnel money to her in exchange for preferential treatment for that employer (which the evidence shows) once they were in the Governors mansion?

[zenkai]

Methinks u need to research what flip-flopping actually means in the political arena.

Hillary has stood up and clearly stated her position on something and then at a later date has taken the exact opposite position. Thats called flip-flopping. Google "hillary flip flopping"... hell, put it in Youtube. You will see its a clearly accepted fact that Hillary is a flip-flopper, always has been and always will be.

Trump is incoherent and a mess... he has totally different issues.

I did that this is what I got.





You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

[NYC17]

Methinks u need to research what flip-flopping actually means in the political arena.

Hillary has stood up and clearly stated her position on something and then at a later date has taken the exact opposite position. Thats called flip-flopping. Google "hillary flip flopping"... hell, put it in Youtube. You will see its a clearly accepted fact that Hillary is a flip-flopper, always has been and always will be.

Trump is incoherent and a mess... he has totally different issues.

The problem isn't the definition, the problem is you using it as a counter argument and thinking it's viable.

As for Trump and flip flopping, the guy has done it repeatedly within his campaign for presidency alone. Why you'd choose to even cite this as an issue for Hillary is just strange.

[Deleted]

I did that this is what I got.

You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

Thats my point... lol

Just put the words "flipflopping" into Youtube and almost all the returns are Hillary... more evidence that her flip flopping is an accepted trait.

[Ripster42]

Methinks u need to research what flip-flopping actually means in the political arena.

Hillary has stood up and clearly stated her position on something and then at a later date has taken the exact opposite position. Thats called flip-flopping. Google "hillary flip flopping"... hell, put it in Youtube. You will see its a clearly accepted fact that Hillary is a flip-flopper, always has been and always will be.

Trump is incoherent and a mess... he has totally different issues.

I think you need to research trump's positions and how he's changed them. Is he pro-life, or pro-choice? Anti-gay marriage, pro-gay marriage, or anti-gay marriage again? Was he for the iraq war or against it? Does he believe that taking campaign donations is a good or a bad thing? Is he self-funding his campaign, or isn't he?

Your bullshit doesn't track. He's literally changed his position on a flat tax mid interview.

[Merkava]

Methinks u need to research what flip-flopping actually means in the political arena.

Hillary has stood up and clearly stated her position on something and then at a later date has taken the exact opposite position. Thats called flip-flopping. Google "hillary flip flopping"... hell, put it in Youtube. You will see its a clearly accepted fact that Hillary is a flip-flopper, always has been and always will be.

Trump is incoherent and a mess... he has totally different issues.

Clinton's (Hillary and Bill's) triangulations are well known. Hell, they perfected it. Along with selling out major portions of their constituency. But as far as flip flops, nothing can compare to Trump.

[Kyriani]

A study that said 1 in 31 Trillion. Tell me that you're willing to believe that she just got lucky and bucked those odds. Please say that.

Edit - Tell me what's more likely, she hit the 1 in 31 Trillion long shot, or, like the evidence suggests, a powerful attorney for the largest employer in Arkansas connected her to a broker who was willing to funnel money to her in exchange for preferential treatment for that employer (which the evidence shows) once they were in the Governors mansion?

It's still not actual evidence. I'm sorry but its not. Certainly it's suspicious, but without evidence, I'm afraid you have nothing. Making a lot of money from a fortuitous investment isn't illegal. And if evidence had been found of wrong doing, surely Hillary would have paid the price for it. But no evidence was found. Not saying it didn't exist. Only that none was found. And without evidence, you have no case. I'm sorry but that's how the law works. No court of law will take your "feels" as evidence. A statistical improbability is also not evidence. Evidence is facts and information. All you have is a study that says its highly unlikely she made that money legit, but not impossible.

[Deleted]

The problem isn't the definition, the problem is you using it as a counter argument and thinking it's viable.

The definition is only a problem for you.

I made a STATEMENT, i wasnt countering anything LMAO

I said>>>

Hillary will change her position like the weather... she has absolutely zero personal moral standpoints. Every moral position will change if either the price is right or she sees personal gain.

Gay Marriage *cough cough cough*

And u took issue with that STATEMENT.

[TZucchini]

The smoking gun is the fact that she made a 10,000% profit.

Not a smoking gun, it's easily explainable. Hillary received excellent advice from several people, at the exact time that the cattle market started booming.

The smoking gun is the fact that Tyson got preferential treatment from the Governors office.

So Tyson, a major agricultural producer in Arkansas, bringing revenue and jobs to the State, received preferential treatment by the head of the state? That's not a smoking gun, that's business as usual.

The smoking gun is that Refco was under investigation for the entire time that they managed her account and later got a three year suspension.

So everyone that brokered through Refco during this time is guilty of a crime? What do their misdeeds have to do with Clinton.


These are not smoking guns. They're allegations.

[Merkava]

It's still not actual evidence. I'm sorry but its not. Certainly it's suspicious, but without evidence, I'm afraid you have nothing. Making a lot of money from a fortuitous investment isn't illegal. And if evidence had been found of wrong doing, surely Hillary would have paid the price for it. But no evidence was found. Not saying it didn't exist. Only that none was found. And without evidence, you have no case. I'm sorry but that's how the law works. No court of law will take your "feels" as evidence.

The statute of limitations has expired. Jesus don't you guys read any of the links?

[Deleted]

I think you need to research trump's positions and how he's changed them. Is he pro-life, or pro-choice? Anti-gay marriage, pro-gay marriage, or anti-gay marriage again? Was he for the iraq war or against it? Does he believe that taking campaign donations is a good or a bad thing? Is he self-funding his campaign, or isn't he?

Your bullshit doesn't track. He's literally changed his position on a flat tax mid interview.

You have 100% backed up my point!!!!!!

I said Trump is all over the place... and you say EXACTLY that too.

Flipflopping is a very different action... sheesh guys do your research.

[Felya]

!?!?!U did see that i hate both of them right?

Nope, I see another false equivalency.

I am being objective here... Clintons closet is exponentially more volatile than Trumps. Thats just obvious.

That is not objective in the least. Trump has had scandals in every decade for the last 50 years. While Clinton was the first freshman in her college to be the president of young republicans and then ending her college career as the first student to give a graduation speech in her school, Trump was reporting conflicting arguments for dodging the draft. While Clinton was winning Woman of the year and mother of the year in Arkensas, being a board member of Walmart, successfully arguing to increase funding for lawyers to those who cannot afford one from Reagan administration, rebuilding Arkensas education system and becoming one of the most respected women in polotics... Trump was suing the NFL for monopoly on football, repeatedly sued by NYC for being a slumb lord, became the Paris Hilton of the 80s including the infamous "you bitch, leave my husband alone" and started to appear as a joke on SNL. Hillary then became the first and arguably most relevant First Lady in history, including the failed Hillarycare, Trump's lawsuits continued, his bankruptcy number hit 4 and his reputation as exactly what is wrong with corporations became a standard example. While Hillary was a NY congressman and then a Secretary of State, Trump's only relevance continued to be his scandals, from threatening to sue comics to horrendous and spiteful practices in building his golf course in Scottland to promising undeniable proof of Obama's birth and becoming a reality TV celebrity.

There is nothing in Trump's history that makes him at all relevant beyond just someone who has money, other than his scandals and celebrity. Trump is not a billionaire who was in the papers for having a knack for business, but his scandals and notoriety as a rich playboy. As much as Hillary has in her closets, she accomplished a lot of firsts and contributed heavily to our political system. Trump's scandals are all he has. His financial growth isn't remarkable, when you consider his starting point. Even in business, he is known as the guy to stab you in the back, not one with quality foresight or business acumen.

So, no, it's not objective at all to say Hillary has more or even remotely close to the skeletons in her closet. In fact, it's purely subjective and ignores Trump's history completley. Because he has nothing else. What saying 'Hillary is just as bad or worse than Trump' it is a far greater compliment to Trump, than the disengenous claim for neutrality or not supporting him. I don't think the fact that you need to hide your Trump support, helps much in the argument you are trying to make.

Trumps closet will be filled with dodgy business deals etc. And Hillarys will be filled with abuse of power.

What abuse of power? Clinton's closets are filled with crony capitalism bullshit. It's the same crap that the establishment is built on. Trump's is built on ripping off people that believe in him. Trump rips off, not just his opponent or randoms, he does it to his business partners, his tenants, his patrons. The above tries to downplay the only history Trump has... Trump has abused all the power he has ever had.

If you are hinging your bets on her being in office to abuse political power, to ignore the fact that Trump has had 0 to abuse, while abusing every inch of the power he did have... you'r 'I hate them both' crap isn't going to work... Saying look at Hillary's scandals in politics, because Trump has simply not had the access, gives you away.

Which do you thnk the public will take more seriously?

At this point? I think the fact that just about every Trump supporter has stopped posting Trump is God memes on this forum, to instead now be 'I hate them both equaly' should answer the above...

[Kyriani]

The statute of limitations has expired. Jesus don't you guys read any of the links?

>_>

Why would I care about the statute of limitations? This was an old controversy. Of course they expired. I'm just saying you have no actual evidence. You have a statistical study... that even as improbable as it might be, says its possible she did make that money legit. That study isn't evidence, it isn't a smoking gun, and any court of law would laugh you out of the courtroom if you tried to base a case on it, assuming they didn't just hold you in contempt for wasting the court's time.

I'm sorry but you're really grasping at straws with that. I'm not saying Clinton didn't do anything wrong. I am saying you have no actual evidence of wrong doing nor was any found at the time (again not that it didn't exist).

Innocent until proven guilty. Without proof you have nothing. A statistical study is not proof.

[Ripster42]

You have 100% backed up my point!!!!!!

I said Trump is all over the place... and you say EXACTLY that too.

Flipflopping is a very different action... sheesh guys do your research.

If you're saying he's not clearly stating his position because he flip flops so much, I'm not really sure you have an argument. He's clearly stating his position, and then he's changing it. It's just that barely any time passes in some cases. The fact that little time passes doesn't mean it's not flip flopping, just that he thinks so little of people that he apparently doesn't think they'll realize it.

[Felya]

Just put the words "flipflopping" into Youtube and almost all the returns are Hillary... more evidence that her flip flopping is an accepted trait.

No, the issue is your differance of opinion. Most define flip flopping as an immidiet change in opinion, not one that takes years to change. What your actual demand is, for politicians to try not to adopt to the constituents. You are asking politicians to stick to what they said years ago, even if public opinion shifted. That's not complaints about flip flopping, that's complaints that people are doing their job.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're saying he's not clearly stating his position because he flip flops so much, I'm not really sure you have an argument. He's clearly stating his position, and then he's changing it. It's just that barely any time passes in some cases. The fact that little time passes doesn't mean it's not flip flopping, just that he thinks so little of people that he apparently doesn't think they'll realize it.

It's what flip flopping means... Changing your mind is not a synonym of flip flopping. Changing your mind within hours or a couple of days, after a negative reaction, is flip flopping. Hillary did not change her stance on gay marriage after being jeered for it nearly a decade ago. Public opinion shifted over time, which should make Hillary's shift with the public understandable. After all, for the demographics and statistics for supporting gay marriage changed, were all those people flip flopping? Without political gain?

[Deleted]

What abuse of power? Clinton's closets are filled with crony capitalism bullshit. It's the same crap that the establishment is built on. Trump's is built on ripping off people that believe in him. Trump rips off, not just his opponent or randoms, he does it to his business partners, his tenants, his patrons. The above tries to downplay the only history Trump has... Trump has abused all the power he has ever had.

If you are hinging your bets on her being in office to abuse political power, to ignore the fact that Trump has had 0 to abuse, while abusing every inch of the power he did have... you'r 'I hate them both' crap isn't going to work... Saying look at Hillary's scandals in politics, because Trump has simply not had the access, gives you away.

Finally someone who makes alot of sense!!!

I can totally agree with what you are saying... Trump is a fukking idiot, undeniable. And he hasnt had political power in the political arena therefore we cannot say with any certainty that he will abuse that political power... only opinion will say he will.

My point is that Hillary has proven that she is corrupt and has abused her political power.

By extension she is 100% establishment, she represents all that is bad about US politics for the past 50 years. She is the face of a political system that a growing movement in the USA is trying to change.

I also dont like Trump supporters, so u dont have to point out their flaws lol... but they have simply ended up on the right side imo. Very similiar to those 'racists' who voted Brexit in the UK, bad people who actually got the vote correct. Voting out of the establishment control. Scotland almost got independance by 1-2% and that is another example of massive sections of society wanting to fukk off the establishment.

Right there is my position.

[NYC17]

The definition is only a problem for you.

I made a STATEMENT, i wasnt countering anything LMAO

I said>>>


And u took issue with that STATEMENT.

...

I clearly stated the definition isn't the problem. You're using Hillary's flip flopping as a counter argument to her being a more viable candidate. How the fuck do people not even know what they're own argument is? Lol

Not to mention the fact that you're wrong regarding Trump's propensity for flip flopping. He doesn't have different issues; he has additional ones.

So to sum up, your STATEMENT was a COUNTER ARGUMENT, that demonstrates your obliviousness to Trump's flip.flopping.

Simple stuff really.

[Merkava]

Not a smoking gun, it's easily explainable. Hillary received excellent advice from several people, at the exact time that the cattle market started booming.



So Tyson, a major agricultural producer in Arkansas, bringing revenue and jobs to the State, received preferential treatment by the head of the state? That's not a smoking gun, that's business as usual.



So everyone that brokered through Refco during this time is guilty of a crime? What do their misdeeds have to do with Clinton.


These are not smoking guns. They're allegations.

1. Bucking 1 in 31 Trillion odds is easily explainable?
2. Do you know what Tyson got?
3. No. Just people that received money from trades they didn't make.

Here. Check out this link from DailyKos. You probably won't so I'll just post them here.

Starting in October 1978, when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor, [Hillary] was guided by James Blair, a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, ... Blair in turn traded through, and relied upon cattle markets expertise from, broker Robert L. "Red" Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive ...

At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her. …

In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery, allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing.

The White House said today that Hillary Rodham Clinton made $6,498 in a commodities-trading venture in 1980 and never reported the profit to the Internal Revenue Service.

The disclosure was the latest in a series of revised explanations about the Clintons' real-estate ventures and commodities investments beginning in the late 70's. Mrs. Clinton had previously said through her lawyers and aides that she invested $5,000 in the account, lost $1,000 and withdrew from additional trading shortly after the birth of her daughter, Chelsea, in 1980.

After disclosing the problem today, the White House said, the Clintons paid the Internal Revenue Service and the Arkansas state government $14,615 in back taxes and interest

The investments, made in a commodities trading account that was opened three weeks before Mr. Clinton was elected Governor in 1978, substantially altered the finances of the Clintons. At the time, Mr. Clinton was Attorney General. He and his wife were rising stars in Little Rock whose salaries were modest by the standards of their peers.

The proceeds helped them to buy a home, to invest in securities and real estate and eventually to provide a nest egg for their young daughter, according to the couple's associates and a review of the family's financial records.

Chicago Mercantile Exchange records indicated that $40,000 of her profits came from larger trades initiated by James Blair. According to exchange records, "Red" Bone, the commodities broker that facilitated the trades on behalf of Refco, reportedly because Blair was a good client, allowed Rodham to maintain her positions even though she did not have enough money in her account to cover her activity. For example, she was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time.

This paper investigates the odds of generating a 100-fold return in the cattle futures market. We employ cattle futures data for the period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979, to compute the probability of obtaining such a return. The tests are constructed to give the investor the benefit of the doubt whenever doubt exists. The most conservative finding is that the probability is one in approximately thirty-one trillion. Assuming that the return is made in the most efficient way possible, this probability falls to approximately 1.5×10−16.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493

Mrs. Clinton initially told aides that she had turned a $1,000 commodities investment into a $100,000 profit by studying the financial news and placing trades herself.

Earlier this month, White House officials conceded that James B. Blair, a family friend and a lawyer for one of the state's largest companies, Tyson Foods Inc., had played an advisory role in placing the trades.

Today, she said she had relied heavily on the advice of Mr. Blair.

"I did the trades," she said. "They were my trades. I was responsible for them. But I did them on the advice of Jim Blair, and very often he placed them for me."

But the trades, which came to light during a two-month examination of the Clintons' finances by The New York Times, also left them in the position of having relied significantly on the help of one of the state's premier powerbrokers, James B. Blair, a Clinton confidant who at the time was the primary outside lawyer for Tyson Foods Inc., of Springdale, Ark., the nation's biggest poultry company.

During Mr. Clinton's tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues. Even today, critics in Congress and elsewhere have complained that the Clinton Administration is too close to Tyson and the poultry industry it dominates, sparing it from some of the tougher Federal inspection guidelines enacted against the meat industry

In 1977, the state pollution control agency reissued the license for Tyson's Green Forest plant on the condition that the company meet with city officials to work out a plan for treating its wastes. But the state never enforced the order, and in May 1983 the waste from the plant seeped into the town's drinking water. Residents became ill, and 15 months later Governor Clinton declared the town a disaster area.

- - - Updated - - -

>_>

Why would I care about the statute of limitations? This was an old controversy.

Jesus Christ. Read the fucking links. The statute of limitation had already passed when the news broke in 1994.

[Deleted]

If you're saying he's not clearly stating his position because he flip flops so much,

Do i have to explain this to you again?

Trump is incoherent... unclear etc.

Flip-flopping is making a clear statement of support for a position and then making a clear statement of support for the other side later in your career.

- - - Updated - - -

...

I clearly stated the definition isn't the problem. You're using Hillary's flip flopping as a counter argument to her being a more viable candidate..

No i wasnt.

I was highlighting the fact that she is a recognised political flipflopper. Every serious political observer will happily admit this. Its undeniable.

You can make whatever u want from this fact... if you see that damages her image then fair enough.