Hillary Clinton is one of, if not the, worst potential presidents out there

big sponge · April 13, 2015, 03:09:55 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:03:45 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.

Uh, are you retarded? Benghazi happened.

That doesn't mean it was somehow Obama and Hillary's fault, which multiple government and independent inquires have confirmed it wasn't after pouring over the evidence.

challengerX · April 13, 2015, 03:11:29 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mad Max · April 13, 2015, 03:11:49 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 03:09:55 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.

Uh, are you retarded? Benghazi happened.

That doesn't mean it was somehow Obama and Hillary's fault, which multiple government and independent inquires have confirmed it wasn't after pouring over the evidence.

BUT BENGHAZI

aREALgod · April 13, 2015, 03:15:39 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
Hillary Clinton's platform on government transparency:

lolcontext
Yeah, the context is that she's asking why the circumstances of their deaths matter, why it matters whether it was a terrorist attack or an uncoordinated riot. Well, it matters for the reasons I listed above.

And this^, for you liberal faggots making fun of Benghazi. Especially you, Mad Maximum Austism

big sponge · April 13, 2015, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.

You mean the "leaked" information that Johnathan Karl reported on without vetting his source that only the conservative news outlets still tout as fact? I'd also like a quote on Hillary saying she covered up Benghazi for political purposes due to the fact that Patraeus was testifying that the reason for scrubbing the terrorist references was to avoid tipping off various terrorist organizations of how much we knew about them and how well we were tracking them.

Her actually admitting to covering it up for political purposes would be incredibly massive and all over every major news station instead of being parroted on far right wing blogs and "news" websites with no actual quotes to back them up.

Turkey · April 13, 2015, 03:47:37 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 03:34:27 PM

You mean the "leaked" information that Johnathan Karl reported on without vetting his source that only the conservative news outlets still tout as fact?

No, I mean the disparity between the official story for three weeks and the testimony given by Mrs. Clinton during the investigation stating they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.

Quote

Her actually admitting to covering it up for political purposes would be incredibly massive and all over every major news station instead of being parroted on far right wing blogs and "news" websites with no actual quotes to back them up.

Obviously she never said anything of the sort. It's as simple as connecting the dots of the timeline of the attack with the election. President Obama was already known for failure at foreign policy, and this could have been a nail in the coffin of his presidency. Whether that's a valid consequence isn't relevant; what matters is that there's no justifiable reason for the false story being propagated for weeks.

Mad Max · April 13, 2015, 03:48:13 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:15:39 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
Hillary Clinton's platform on government transparency:

lolcontext
Yeah, the context is that she's asking why the circumstances of their deaths matter, why it matters whether it was a terrorist attack or an uncoordinated riot. Well, it matters for the reasons I listed above.

And this^, for you liberal faggots making fun of Benghazi. Especially you, Mad Maximum Austism

"I don't agree with you therefor I'm going to sling insults"

K.

big sponge · April 13, 2015, 03:54:19 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 03:47:37 PM

Ok so there's no actual evidence and it's "connect the dots, the numbers mason, what do they mean?".

I'd also call Patraeus saying that the terrorist references were scrubbed in order to not tip off the terrorist organizations of just how much we knew of them to be a valid justification.

Turkey · April 13, 2015, 04:06:05 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 03:54:19 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 03:47:37 PM

Ok so there's no actual evidence and it's "connect the dots, the numbers mason, what do they mean?".

There is. First, there was no justifiable reason for covering up the true cause of the attack. Second, the attack coincided with the height of the election, posing a serious threat to President Obama's chances of being reelected. The actual story was suppressed for several weeks, effectively removing it from the general spotlight.

You're more than welcome to deny that this is why the coverup happened. All I'm doing is rebutting the claims that the administration did nothing wrong and that there was no scandal, both of which are obviously, demonstrably incorrect. It doesn't matter anymore. If it was an attempt to shift blame from the administration, they succeeded, and there's no legal repercussions to be had. It is still a highly legitimate criticism of Clinton.

big sponge · April 13, 2015, 04:13:31 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 04:06:05 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 03:47:37 PM

Ok so there's no actual evidence and it's "connect the dots, the numbers mason, what do they mean?".

There is. First, there was no justifiable reason for covering up the true cause of the attack. Second, the attack coincided with the height of the election, posing a serious threat to President Obama's chances of being reelected. The actual story was suppressed for several weeks, effectively removing it from the general spotlight.

You're more than welcome to deny that this is why the coverup happened. All I'm doing is rebutting the claims that the administration did nothing wrong and that there was no scandal, both of which are obviously, demonstrably incorrect. It doesn't matter anymore. If it was an attempt to shift blame from the administration, they succeeded, and there's no legal repercussions to be had. It is still a highly legitimate criticism of Clinton.

But you're not providing evidence and are just saying "connect the dots". Also you not accepting the given reason as "legitimate" doesn't mean it's not legitimate. However I see you're hellbent on this narrative so there's no reason in trying to continue this conversation.

Turkey · April 13, 2015, 04:32:08 PM

Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 04:13:31 PM

But you're not providing evidence and are just saying "connect the dots". Also you not accepting the given reason as "legitimate" doesn't mean it's not legitimate. However I see you're hellbent on this narrative so there's no reason in trying to continue this conversation.

I'm providing an argument; just because Clinton didn't actually say that was the reason doesn't mean there isn't evidence. The Rhodes email in particular mentions that the policy was for spokespersons to emphasize the role of the video in protests and avoid having appear to be a greater failure of foreign policy. The given reason for the lie is that it was a mistake, a miscommunication between offices. Petraeus' excuse that they didn't want to reveal the extent of their information network is valid only to the disclosure of Ansar al-Sharia's involvement, not the fact that the attack was coordinated.

aREALgod · April 13, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 03:48:13 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
Hillary Clinton's platform on government transparency:

lolcontext
Yeah, the context is that she's asking why the circumstances of their deaths matter, why it matters whether it was a terrorist attack or an uncoordinated riot. Well, it matters for the reasons I listed above.

And this^, for you liberal faggots making fun of Benghazi. Especially you, Mad Maximum Austism
"I don't agree with you therefor I'm going to sling insults"

K.

This isn't about disagreement, this is about facts. And the facts are you're defending liars in government.

Mad Max · April 13, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
Hillary Clinton's platform on government transparency:

lolcontext
Yeah, the context is that she's asking why the circumstances of their deaths matter, why it matters whether it was a terrorist attack or an uncoordinated riot. Well, it matters for the reasons I listed above.

And this^, for you liberal faggots making fun of Benghazi. Especially you, Mad Maximum Austism
"I don't agree with you therefor I'm going to sling insults"

K.

This isn't about disagreement, this is about facts. And the facts are you're defending liars in government.

Dude I don't even like Hillary.

aREALgod · April 13, 2015, 05:52:23 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 05:48:41 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
Hillary Clinton's platform on government transparency:

lolcontext
Yeah, the context is that she's asking why the circumstances of their deaths matter, why it matters whether it was a terrorist attack or an uncoordinated riot. Well, it matters for the reasons I listed above.

And this^, for you liberal faggots making fun of Benghazi. Especially you, Mad Maximum Austism
"I don't agree with you therefor I'm going to sling insults"

K.

This isn't about disagreement, this is about facts. And the facts are you're defending liars in government.
Dude I don't even like Hillary.

Then why defend her on the Benghazi scandal? Regardless of how old it is, as Turkey said her actions during Benghazi are a legitimate criticism against her for her running for the presidency.

Mad Max · April 13, 2015, 05:55:24 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 05:52:23 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 05:48:41 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: LC on April 13, 2015, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: ANGER on April 13, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
No, but to deny that the way they tried to cover up the scandal

There wasn't even a scandal because they didn't actually do anything. You can't have a scandal over something that never happened.
The scandal was the fact that for several weeks, at the height of an election, the administration refused to reveal that the attack was a legitimate terrorist attack, instead blaming it on a riot that went out of control as a result of some video. In reality, as Clinton says, they knew within hours that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They feared that making it public would make the Obama administration appear incompetent and swing the election against him.

Shit, at least Nixon's guys just stole some tapes. They didn't lie about the circumstances of four dead Americans and the razing of an embassy.
Quote from: Mad Max on April 13, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 13, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
Hillary Clinton's platform on government transparency:

lolcontext
Yeah, the context is that she's asking why the circumstances of their deaths matter, why it matters whether it was a terrorist attack or an uncoordinated riot. Well, it matters for the reasons I listed above.

And this^, for you liberal faggots making fun of Benghazi. Especially you, Mad Maximum Austism
"I don't agree with you therefor I'm going to sling insults"

K.

This isn't about disagreement, this is about facts. And the facts are you're defending liars in government.
Dude I don't even like Hillary.

Then why defend her on the Benghazi scandal? Regardless of how old it is, as Turkey said her actions during Benghazi are a legitimate criticism against her for her running for the presidency.

Because multiple investigations have been held and the results are conclusive. It's a very, very, very dead horse. Time to move on.

I have no horse in this race. I have no idea who I'll be voting for next year. Probably third party.

Forgewolf · April 13, 2015, 06:36:44 PM

Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 12, 2015, 01:21:47 PM

She's a baby boomer
She's a member of the wealthiest 1%
She's the face of establishment politics
She's a globalist neo-con
She's of, by, and for the collusion between big govt and big corp
She's a shameless liar
She's the most non-transparent politician in history
She has stroke-induced brain damage

But wait, there's more:

She was fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and being unethical
She lied throughout her Whitewater scandal
She lied about taking "sniper fire" when visiting the Balkans during 90s
She lied about Benghazi
She lied throughout her email scandal
She lied about being broke after leaving the White House
She received millions of dollars from Goldman-Sachs for speaking engagements
Her "charity" received millions of dollars from Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup
Her "charity" received tens of millions of dollars from China, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and the UAE
She supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Turkey

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of corruption.

Wow.. there wasn't much to subtract from. I agree with all the statements that remain.. It blows my mind she is in any major government position.

Risay117 · April 13, 2015, 06:56:30 PM

And yet she will be voted in because the repubs are not willing to vote in anyone decent. Hell Jeb is going full right wing nut to win the primaries and that will ruin his chance in the general elections.

Mattie G Indahouse · April 14, 2015, 07:24:15 AM

Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 12, 2015, 01:21:47 PM

She's a baby boomer

Wouldn't that be the majority if all people running for president right now?

Flee · April 14, 2015, 11:51:35 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mad Max · April 14, 2015, 12:00:01 PM

Quote from: Flee on April 14, 2015, 11:51:35 AM

But are there any good alternatives?

In my book - no, not yet.

cuneif · April 14, 2015, 10:16:56 PM

http://www.troll.me/images/thumbs-up-jesus-says/i-agree.jpg

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 14, 2015, 10:46:53 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Alternative Facts · April 15, 2015, 08:29:54 AM

I'll still likely end up voting for her.

Naoto · April 15, 2015, 10:16:35 AM

Quote from: Icy on April 15, 2015, 08:29:54 AM

I'll still likely end up voting for her.

Ye she's probably going to end up being the lesser evil this round.
Can't see too many dems running against her even tho that's what they said in '08.

cxfhvxgkcf-56:7 · April 15, 2015, 10:29:36 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Forgewolf · April 15, 2015, 11:10:18 PM

Quote from: Flee on April 14, 2015, 11:51:35 AM

But are there any good alternatives?

Only if Gary Johnson would give it another go.. However, he probably does more good by NOT being a president

Chakas · April 18, 2015, 11:00:36 PM

This may be true, but remember, there's going to be a shit-ton of people out there that are going to vote for her just because she is a woman in the name of progress. That is, if voting even matters at this point. I doubt that the American public is in control of who becomes president. I really do. This state of mind is reinforced with the recent stories of the voting machines having absurdly easy passwords like "abcde".