Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[ZaldamoWilder]

I've loved every one of their face offs.  I love how easily manipulable he is combined with how skilled she is at nudging him to, but often completely over, the brink of rationale.   And it's not like it's that hard to get an NPD to have a flare but he has done such an excellent job of making it easy for her with his loose grip on every single component required of properly articulated argument and minimum pretense of basic human decency that I'm embarrassed on his supporters' behalf.    Part of me feels like what I'm looking at is simply not fair because they're not intellectual equals and poor thing, the not only doesn't know that, he thinks he's her superior.   The unexpected giggles are the best.  Like last night when Hillary said many people see the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom, Donald sees her as a 4 - the cameraman then focused on the audience and found a legitimately confused Rudy Giuliani mouthing to himself:  what?   Perfect.  Lol. 

Billy Baldwin was asked by an entertainment reporter what he thought of his brother's SNL impressions.   He said he's got the voice spot on but some of the skits have gone a bit too far.    We're not being respectful to him.   Oh ok.

[Kromm]

13 minutes ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

Billy Baldwin was asked by an entertainment reporter what he thought of his brother's SNL impressions.   He said he's got the voice spot on but some of the skits have gone a bit too far.    We're not being respectful to him.   Oh ok.

Just posted about this in the Surrogates topic (the closest match I could think of). At first I simply assumed I'd found Stephen saying something similar to what you saw from Billy, but it was after the fact that I concluded that maybe you just confused one non-Alec Baldwin with the other.  Billy, I believe, is actually a Democrat (like Alec) so that didn't totally make sense, whereas Stephen (who admittedly looks the most like Billy) is the bible thumping Tea Partying far right Republican. Don't recall much about Daniel Baldwin's beliefs though. Anyway, here's what Stephen said:

[ZaldamoWilder]

5 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Just posted about this in the Surrogates topic (the closest match I could think of). At first I simply assumed I'd found Stephen saying something similar to what you saw from Billy, but it was after the fact that I concluded that maybe you just confused one non-Alec Baldwin with the other.  Billy, I believe, is actually a Democrat (like Alec) so that didn't totally make sense, whereas Stephen (who admittedly looks the most like Billy) is the bible thumping Tea Partying far right Republican. Don't recall much about Daniel Baldwin's beliefs though. Anyway, here's what Stephen said:

 

lol, standing corrected.

[pivot]

7 hours ago, film noire said:

You can call HRC many things (and many have) but her accomplishments, personal and political, mean she can't reasonably be labeled "small". To attain what she's achieved demands a big -- giant, vast, yuuuge! --  intellect, vision, spirit and labor.  She's an extraordinary woman who makes her extraordinary career look unassumingly done; the most graceful touch imaginable.

She's small and petty and always has been. And she's held a lot of impressive positions and done little with them. She does have a great PR team though. 

[pivot]

3 hours ago, Landsnark said:

Obama calls Trump a whiner at a state event with a world leader there.  Good GOD, he's amazing!  Hillary Clinton calls Trump a whiner at a roast dinner.  She's a foul, mean, small, classless, graceless epitome of mediocrity. 

Yep.  Seems legit!

Obama has great comedic timing, is likable and has charisma. Hillary has none of that. Hillary supporters can drag out the old sexism whine or just accept that the majority of the country doesn't see Hillary the way you do. Most find her to be "Meh" at best. She proved that at the Al Smith dinner.

[Advance35]

Someone HOLD ME BACK!!!!!
 

Word's once again fail me.   You know I know Trump's son tweeted repeal the 19th but I feel like under a Trump regime we would see statements like "Them uppity Wim folk aren't ready for the responsibility of the vote." This son of a BATCH can go swallow a tumbleweed.

[ZaldamoWilder]

9 minutes ago, pivot said:

Obama has great comedic timing, is likable and has charisma. Hillary has none of that. Hillary supporters can drag out the old sexism whine or just accept that the majority of the country doesn't see Hillary the way you do. Most find her to be "Meh" at best. She proved that at the Al Smith dinner.

Quite possibly.  But in the rock, paper, scissors of candidacy meh beats clinical insanity every day.

[Grommet]

And as Al Franken noted on Rachel Maddow's show last night, voters aren't looking for the president to be a comedian, though we do prefer people with a sense of humor that includes jokes at their own expense - something Trump simply does not have. Compare any of Trump's appearances on Letterman with Clinton's for evidence of that.

[Kromm]

22 minutes ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

Quite possibly.  But in the rock, paper, scissors of candidacy meh beats clinical insanity every day.

Thank goodness charisma isn't the only skillset that matters to the Presidency.

Trump has it, even if it turns ugly quickly if you pay too much attention to what the big orange face is actually saying. He's got good comic timing when he's on his game.

But that has little to do with an ability to lead, it doesn't mean that he even has a good sense of humor, for those who care about stuff like that, because all he can do is dish it and not take it, or that he's reasonable, or even sane in how he makes decisions or deals with other people.

Hillary IS sometimes the "robot" people accuse her of being. She's not a warm woman.  

So what? The important thing is that for all his charm, Trump can't tolerate working with other people and the supposedly charmless Hillary can.

She no ideal candidate, but I'll take the hard worker, the consensus builder, over the rogue Maverick who's only effective mode of leadership is imposing his absolute will on everyone else (and according to many stories, screaming and yelling at people even about things HE asked for if they wind up sucking).

[cpcathy]

This is what pisses me off about a woman finally running for president in this country, she has to be warm and likeable and smile, for cryin out loud. This is a country that was cool with Sarah Palin, though she was an idiot, she was cute and spoke funny and had nice hair and cute glasses. Hillary is not running to show people how warm she is. Sometimes women are not warm. Sorry 'bout it! If she gets the job done, who gives a crap.

[Landsnark]

Our neighbors heard us laughing at Hillary's jokes.  She delivered them well.  Does it matter in the grand scheme?  No.  Know what matters?  She was fucking prepared for a silly roast at a silly dinner.  She fucking nailed it.  She hired extraordinary joke writers, she was absolutely familiar with the room, the attendees, the tradition, she owned it.  If you don't want that sort of organization from the leader of your government, then... I just don't know.  It's a throwaway event and she was completely prepared.

Also, and it means nothing, she's miles funnier than Bernie.  Bernie couldn't make me laugh in a year of trying.  He couldn't inspire me to cross the street.  She's funnier than every other Republican who ran in the primaries.  Imagine being amused by Jeb Bush?  Rubio?  Ben fucking Carson?  Fiorina?  It is literally impossible for Carly Fiorina to be charismatic.  Kasich?  Kasich would tell a joke and make me sad, not laugh.  MAYBE Rand Paul is in possession of a sense of humor.  He's cynical and wry, and self-aware.
And all that aside, I want a consensus-builder in the office who can get things done and can move a pile of papers from the in box to the out box efficiently and professionally without waste.  That's it. 
I don't need to be friends with this person.  I don't need her to be my coach, or my yogi, or my inspiration.   I don't want an ideologue.  I want a clear eyed career professional politician who is experienced and capable. 

Guess what?  There's one on the ballot.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Landsnark

[Kromm]

4 minutes ago, maraleia said:

I laughed at every joke she told last night and yes your comments read as sexist.

I'm on a weird line with that. On one hand, I think it's unhealthy to think every slam on Hillary is sexist. On the other hand, if someone has to preface or follow up critical statements about her with phrases like "sexism whine", then it's showing an inherent disregard for the whole concept.

Really to me it all boils down to the fact that Trump is utterly insane, and Hillary is AT WORST fairly well touched by typical political muck, a bit charmless at times (and insincere or robotic seeming when she tries to fake it) and in what can be both a good OR bad trait, very ambitious. Of course our stupid society celebrates that ambition in men and punishes women for it, which gets back to sexism, but recognizing that doesn't mean it might not be either of those things in her. These days I tend to think it's more of a positive with her, because it's taken a lot of patience and gumption to stand up to a process that's included being regularly degraded by the entire world. So yay, ambition, at least today. 

Again... not insane. Even if that were the only reason (it's not) it's already a big enough one.

[Princess Sparkle]

44 minutes ago, cpcathy said:

This is what pisses me off about a woman finally running for president in this country, she has to be warm and likeable and smile, for cryin out loud. This is a country that was cool with Sarah Palin, though she was an idiot, she was cute and spoke funny and had nice hair and cute glasses. Hillary is not running to show people how warm she is. Sometimes women are not warm. Sorry 'bout it! If she gets the job done, who gives a crap.

This seems like the right time to quote the great Tina Fey:

[cpcathy]

I've had that piece floating around in my head for about a week now.

[atomationage]

Tina and Amy 02/23/08 the full video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vAVhaIEIk

[film noire]

10 hours ago, VMepicgrl said:

 Just because Hillary isn't as natural at joking around publicly doesn't mean she would be a step down as president. 

So true -- even if HRC were as dour as Lincoln himself,  it wouldn't matter. A president amusing the masses is not a measure of their class or grace under pressure.

Quote

Quite possibly.  But in the rock, paper, scissors of candidacy meh beats clinical insanity every day.

LOL 

Edited October 22, 2016 by film noire
removed stephen baldwin ref -- already covered upthread!

[Kitty Redstone]

I think she is warm, but also sees that professionally and politically it's often not appropriate.  We all have different personas for different situations and she is no different. 

[cpcathy]

She's stern, because she needs to be. She's invested in her work and her goal for the country, I don't think she wants to be president just to be president, she cares about what she's doing and she always has. How can you be a giddy schoolgirl if there's a lot of important work to do?

[LoneHaranguer]

19 hours ago, HumblePi said:

Just when you think Donald Trump couldn't do any worse than shoot himself in the foot with the response to whether or not he'll accept the outcome of the election if he doesn't win, by saying "I'll keep you in suspense", he shot himself in the other foot at his rally this afternoon by saying "I will absolutely accept the outcome of this election.........IF I WIN!" What a dumabass

An obvious joke, but why is this even an issue? We've just been seeing Clinton with Al Gore, the guy that went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to get the vote-counting rules changed in Florida rather that accept his loss, and only reluctantly conceded after he was turned down. Trump can't know what will happen and doesn't want to make an empty promise. Does anyone seriously think Clinton will stick to her pledge no matter what? Trump is just being honest, as he attacks her ethics, and she's proving his point as she tries to attack him for it.

[pivot]

3 hours ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

Quite possibly.  But in the rock, paper, scissors of candidacy meh beats clinical insanity every day.

Which is what I said originally but got taken to task for not worshipping at the altar of mediocre Hillary.

1 hour ago, Princess Sparkle said:

This seems like the right time to quote the great Tina Fey:

Except that was a big lie. Hillary didn't get stuff done in the Senate. Obama got significantly more done as Senator in less time. Hillary failed at her one attempt on leading on legislation, Hillarycare, in her entire career. She was a backbencher, mediocre Senator and was an average SoS at best. But, it is easier to claim that this is about sexism and not her long tenure in DC with little to show for it.

[ZaldamoWilder]

11 minutes ago, pivot said:

Which is what I said originally but got taken to task for not worshipping at the altar of mediocre Hillary.

Except that was a big lie. Hillary didn't get stuff done in the Senate. Obama got significantly more done as Senator in less time. Hillary failed at her one attempt on leading on legislation, Hillarycare, in her entire career. She was a backbencher, mediocre Senator and was an average SoS at best. But, it is easier to claim that this is about sexism and not her long tenure in DC with little to show for it.

I don't think you did get taken to task, but I'm not the beholder.   If there's a distinction it may be that I'm objecting to some lousy ass (says me) opinions, not to you or your entitlement to express them.   Give it a shot  ;)

[partofme]

31 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

An obvious joke, but why is this even an issue? We've just been seeing Clinton with Al Gore, the guy that went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to get the vote-counting rules changed in Florida rather that accept his loss, 

Gore didn't lose though, he would have won Florida but the SC decided to stop the vote counting.  And he won the popular vote.

[BookWoman56]

I don't think most people would have objections if Trump waited to concede if there were a repeat of 2000, where the vote count in Florida was so close it triggered a mandatory recount, the ballot design was confusing as hell (although that's on the Dems), and the outcome of the overall election hinged on those electoral votes. But that scenario does not seem likely this time around. If Trump loses the popular vote by a significant margin and loses the electoral college by 100 votes, but still refuses to concede because he's charging voter fraud, though, he's going to go down as one of the sorest losers in U.S. politics. Not that it really matters, because there's no legal ramifications of him refusing to concede, AFAIK. But the concession of the losing candidate is a symbolic gesture, meant to signal the beginning of both sides uniting under the winner. Not sure I see that happening this time around. I don't think it's going to happen, but I can't see Hillary refusing to concede if the opposite were to occur.

Coming back to Hillary, I am still nervous about more WikiLeaks coming, but the thing I find most remarkable so far is that for all the hype, there's no smoking gun. In the leaked speech, Hillary expressed a dream that in the future there would be open borders and open trade. WTH is supposed to be so terrible about that wish? I'd love to live in a world where there was no need for border patrols and people could move without restriction from one country to another. Maybe it's because I grew up watching Star Trek, but I look forward to the point when there is a global government because the entire planet is at peace without the bullshit nationalism. Not going to happen in my lifetime, but I too can dream. And I have to laugh at the people who deride open trade and want protectionism. A global economy is here to stay. If the U.S. wants to sell products in other countries, we have to accept that other countries will want to sell their products here, and high tariffs on our part will result in equally high tariffs on the part of other countries. From my perspective, open trade is good and drives companies to compete by developing better products. Does anyone really want a return to the time when almost all cars in the U.S. were manufactured by Detroit, designed for a 5-year shelf life so that people would have to buy a new one every 4-5 years? (Although it does sound remarkably like the strategy for iPhones.) From a consumer perspective, the best thing that ever happened to the auto industry in the U.S. was when dealerships opened up selling Toyotas and so forth, and all of a sudden there was this collective realization that it was possible to build a car that could last for a good 10 years and had much better fuel efficiency. Detroit belatedly realized that to stay competitive, it needed to produce a better product.

[DeLurker]

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

An obvious joke, but why is this even an issue? We've just been seeing Clinton with Al Gore, the guy that went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to get the vote-counting rules changed in Florida rather that accept his loss, and only reluctantly conceded after he was turned down. Trump can't know what will happen and doesn't want to make an empty promise.

It is an issue because it is one Trump repeatedly makes.  He has been saying for a couple of months now that things are rigged.  If I recall correctly, the issue for Gore was that it was a tight race and the outcome of Florida decided the election.

Trump does know what will happen - if he loses,  it is rigged and if he doesn't lose, his faith in the electoral system is restored because it reached the "right" outcome.  And I think you've given him too much credit by saying he doesn't want to make an empty promise.

Edited October 21, 2016 by DeLurker
cause face and faith are not interchangeable.

[film noire]

1 hour ago, pivot said:

 But, it is easier to claim that this is about sexism and not her long tenure in DC with little to show for it.

But that’s not accurate. Off the top of my head, HRC can claim (as First Lady) her historic speech in Beijing (women’s rights are human rights) and SCHIP, and as Senator, the 9/11/ First Responders bill,  the Lily Ledbetter act,  Pediatric Research Equity Act, and as SOC, the new START arms treaty with Russia, renewing diplomatic ties with Myanmar (first SOC to visit since '62), Iran sanctions, being a core part of the admin that got bin Laden, and maybe most importantly of all, repairing America’s deeply tarnished image abroad after Dubya destroyed it.  Criticizing what she did is fair game, but pretending she did nothing significant is just factually wrong.

It was such a mistake for  Carly Fiorina to start this "She did nuttin'" meme -- especially given her lavish praise of HRC back in 2008 -- which I wholeheartedly agree with:

"I have such great admiration for Hillary Clinton.  She is obviously incredibly intelligent, focused, tough, determined, empathetic of all the tens of millions of people that she was trying to represent in her quest to become the first woman president of the United States. And as a woman, I take great pride in the fact that Hillary Clinton ran for president. While I think woman have made great progress in so many ways I also known from personal experience that women in positions of power – particularly bold women – who are trying to drive change as Hillary Clinton most surely is, bold women -- women in power -- are characterized, scrutinized differently than their male counterparts are."

Pretty sure if HRC were a man, her accomplishments would be criticized but acknowledged, not disappeared altogether.

Edited October 21, 2016 by film noire

[Grommet]

^^Word. I'll also add that "Hillarycare" was blocked by a bunch of white guys who were clearly annoyed at having to deal with the First Lady as an equal.

[film noire]

24 minutes ago, Grommet said:

^^Word. I'll also add that "Hillarycare" was blocked by a bunch of white guys who were clearly annoyed at having to deal with the First Lady as an equal.

Yes -- and I should add (missed it in my last comment) that I think her support of a woman's right to choose is a profound accomplishment. Many politicians hedged their rhetoric and support to suit the conservative bent of the last thirty years, but she never did ( including voting against a ban on late term abortions, which she defended at the debate).  I also wonder if her work -- often on behalf of women, children, and those in need of medical care (of every color)  -- is ignored, or goes unseen, because it's on behalf of communities who constantly struggle to be visible anyway.  Flip her accomplishments around to service rich white men,  and suddenly, her record has a whole lotta media bling  ("Rich men's rights are human rights!" "The meds taken by rich white men must be tested to keep rich white men safe!" "Rich white men must have equal rights under the law!" "Rich white men must be given credit for catching bin Laden!" "Rich white men saved our image abroad!" etc etc.) 

Edited October 21, 2016 by film noire

[starri]

9 hours ago, HumblePi said:

Hillary Clinton has a brilliant mind, there's no doubt about that. Bill Clinton was intelligent also, enough to receive a Rhodes Scholarship and complete studies at Oxford, England for law. There has only been two other Presidents in history that have been offered this prestigious undergraduate scholarship, John Kennedy and John Quincy Adams. Hillary is even more competent  than Bill intellectually.

For all of Bill's faults, he has always, always said she's the smarter of the two.

3 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

We've just been seeing Clinton with Al Gore, the guy that went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to get the vote-counting rules changed in Florida rather that accept his loss, and only reluctantly conceded after he was turned down.

Aside from the fact that that's an inaccurate read of the situation, it's worth pointing out that the Florida recount happened after the votes had been cast.  Trump has decided to delegitimize the election before it actually happens.

[BoogieBurns]

9 hours ago, purplemouth said:

This millennial can't wait to vote FOR Hillary, not against Trump (a fringe benefit).

Seconded! All my millennial friends are already posting their "I Voted Early" stickers with the hashtag #imwithher. 

[madmaverick]

Just as racism didn't end with Obama, misogyny isn't going to end with Hillary, fingers crossed, becoming President.  But hopefully, this ugly election campaign serves as a wake up call to those who thought misogyny was a thing of the past or thought it unnecessary to identify oneself as a feminist, and to those who still don't realize they have a misogyny problem, well, let's hope this campaign has given them cause for reflection and change. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/21/donald-trump-rolled-back-gains-american-women-torrent-misogyny

[BoogieBurns]

13 minutes ago, starri said:

Aside from the fact that that's an inaccurate read of the situation, it's worth pointing out that the Florida recount happened after the votes had been cast.

Wasn't it an automatic recount due to the small margin for the winner? Trump's surrogates didn't even come up with the Gore angle until AFTER the debate Wednesday, and he has been saying it's rigged for months. 

[ariel]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 9:35 PM, Macbeth said:

2 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I don't think cause and because are interchangeable either ;)  But I might be wrong. Sorry, the lack of using because in today's world is a peeve of mine, perhaps more appropriate for the peeve thread. Carry on and ignore this little interruption in the thread. I just want because to keep its place in the world.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some links to back up your claim that Hillary used Clinton Foundation money to pay for her hair color.

[HumblePi]

5 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

An obvious joke, but why is this even an issue? We've just been seeing Clinton with Al Gore, the guy that went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to get the vote-counting rules changed in Florida rather that accept his loss, and only reluctantly conceded after he was turned down. Trump can't know what will happen and doesn't want to make an empty promise. Does anyone seriously think Clinton will stick to her pledge no matter what? Trump is just being honest, as he attacks her ethics, and she's proving his point as she tries to attack him for it.

You are misinformed. What Gore and Trump did are not the same. Here’s a (very) condensed version of what really happened 16 years ago:

1. On election night, several television networks called Florida for George W. Bush, clinching the electoral college — although Gore would end up winning about 500,000 more votes. Gore called Bush to concede.

2. Then the networks uncalled Florida — and Gore unconceded, realizing that he was ahead in the popular vote and if he ended up winning Florida he would have won the election. The election was literally too close to call.

3. A legally mandated recount began.

4. Bush (not Gore) sued to stop recounts in some counties.

5. Gore sued to extend deadlines for recounts.

6. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a more extensive recount. Bush (not Gore) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

7. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount.

8. Gore conceded, and he did it with supreme grace and dignity and encouraged his followers to accept that decision. 

But what Trump has been doing lately is vastly different from what Gore did. He’s calling the election into question well before it’s even happened, and alleging it is “rigged” against him. People just don't understand how a national election cannot be won by 'rigging'. The Brennan Center at the New York School of Law did a deep study on voter fraud and found that less 4/10,000th of a percent to a 9/10,000th of a percent to have voter fraud. This question regarding claims of voter fraud needs to be addressed in a succinct but perfectly clear way. The bottom line is that this is a democracy that has had virtually no voter fraud in more than 225 years. To claim at his rallies that this election is rigged serves two purposes, one is obvious, that Trump raises the question to his supporters about the legitimacy of our democratic election process and of course they believe it because they just believe everything he says and takes it for gospel. Anyone can find the answers about the odds of an election being rigged nationally but they don't bother to look for answers, they would rather believe him because they simply want to. The second purpose is that it undermines our entire democracy and all it stands for. This is playing right into the hands of Vladimir Putin, he's loving this, that we are seeking to destroy ourselves. Vladimir Putin is even quoted as saying this precise thing; "we don't have to worry about destroying you (the USA) because you are imploding from within."  And he's getting a lot of assistance with this from Donald Trump.

[EyewatchTV211]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/21/hillary_clinton_at_the_al_smith_dinner_was_hilarious_and_poignant.html

[LoneHaranguer]

4 hours ago, partofme said:

Gore didn't lose though, he would have won Florida but the SC decided to stop the vote counting.

No. The recount continued anyway and Gore lost by an even wider margin than before. To win, he needed the fraudulent ballots that had been inadvertently spoiled.

3 hours ago, DeLurker said:

And I think you've given him too much credit by saying he doesn't want to make an empty promise.

He did the same thing when he was asked to pledge his support for whomever became the Party's nominee. He did so only after the field had thinned and he was happy with who remained.

1 hour ago, BoogieBurns said:

he has been saying it's rigged for months.

Of course it is; it always is. The claim is just that it's not "significant". Trump is not discounting the possibility that it may be and there's no reason he should.

7 hours ago, cpcathy said:

This is what pisses me off about a woman finally running for president in this country, she has to be warm and likeable and smile, for cryin out loud.

By "a woman finally running" I presume you mean other than the multitude of third-party candidates over the years like Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate this year and four years ago,  as well as Hillary herself, who was elected in 1992 along with her husband on what she called the "Two For One" ticket. She didn't have the credentials at the time for a solo run, so had to settle for co-President, and as has been pointed out many times, that's exactly how she acted, rather than as a First Lady. Eight years ago somebody (probably in the Obama camp) suggested that the Supreme Court will have to pass judgment as to whether that time in the White House disqualifies her from getting any more terms. That could be Kaine's chance for a palace coup.

[HumblePi]

8 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

By "a woman finally running" I presume you mean other than the multitude of third-party candidates over the years like Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate this year and four years ago,  as well as Hillary herself, who was elected in 1992 along with her husband on what she called the "Two For One" ticket. She didn't have the credentials at the time for a solo run, so had to settle for co-President, and as has been pointed out many times, that's exactly how she acted, rather than as a First Lady. Eight years ago somebody (probably in the Obama camp) suggested that the Supreme Court will have to pass judgment as to whether that time in the White House disqualifies her from getting any more terms. That could be Kaine's chance for a palace coup.

In my opinion, the country wasn't ready for a Madam President in 1992, so Bill Clinton stood in her place because he was a man and more acceptable. But it was Hillary Clinton all along that should have served his two terms in office, not Bill.  It should have been her ticket all the way, but the mentality of the nation both men and women, were not ready to accept a hard working, intelligent, worldly and knowledgeable female.  And now, finally in 2016, we're very ready.

[FilmTVGeek80]

3 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Of course it is; it always is. The claim is just that it's not "significant". Trump is not discounting the possibility that it may be and there's no reason he should.

It is not rigged. There is no evidence of that and there is no evidence of THIS election being rigged. So for him to constantly bellow about "rigged" this and "rigged" that and talk about the election being stolen from him is ridiculous! For him to squawk to his supporters at rallies about the only way he can lose is if the election is rigged is just the desperate whining of a sore loser who can't admit that if he loses it's because he was rejected.

8 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

as well as Hillary herself, who was elected in 1992 along with her husband on what she called the "Two For One" ticket. She didn't have the credentials at the time for a solo run, so had to settle for co-President, and as has been pointed out many times, that's exactly how she acted, rather than as a First Lady.

 

What are you talking about? I really hope this was your attempt at humor.

[33kaitykaity]

6 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

No. The recount continued anyway and Gore lost by an even wider margin than before. To win, he needed the fraudulent ballots that had been inadvertently spoiled.

https://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason/

by Vincent Bugliosi

Edited October 22, 2016 by 33kaitykaity
I can't get rid of the quote box or type outside of it. Could someone edit it for me? Thx.

[HumblePi]

This is how a true American patriot accepts defeat, one that was difficult for everyone to accept and unfortunate for our country, it didn't go in his favor. We would have a different country today if Al Gore was elected, not G.W. Bush

[NewDigs]

Just chiming in to beat the dead horse. 

Gore called for a recount of just a few counties in Miami-Dade and I'm pretty sure that at that point the Repubs(?) said that was too restrictive and called for a statewide recount which the Florida Supremes decided was taking too fucking long and Bush et al took it to the Supreme Court and won. 

 

Al Gore could not have enjoyed a revisit so good on him for his Miami appearance with Hillary. 

[BoogieBurns]

2 hours ago, HumblePi said:

1. On election night, several television networks called Florida for George W. Bush, clinching the electoral college — although Gore would end up winning about 500,000 more votes. Gore called Bush to concede.

This final sentence is all that matters. Drumpf is saying he isn't sure he'll follow step one, emphasis mine in the quote. 

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

By "a woman finally running" I presume you mean other than the multitude of third-party candidates over the years like Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate this year and four years ago

Yeah, we are talking about a woman running who may actually win. Not a 1% vote getter. There is a two party system in this country, several other parties exist, however, only one of two parties is in the running to win the presidency. 

This is the first time a woman is finally nominated to represent a major party. I know you knew what we meant. But I'm here all day if you have any more questions or concerns. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by BoogieBurns
confusing wording

[NewDigs]

26 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

This is all that matters. Drumpf is saying he isn't sure he'll follow step one, emphasis mine in the quote. 

All that matters!?!?!? When the 2000 recount can be relitigated???? lol 

 

28 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

;)Caressing the dead horse back to life: I thought also that Gore called for only the counties of his choosing to be recounted (the following is where we differ in our memories) which went against the Florida law of a recount having to include all counties. 

It had to be at least 3 counties. Gore, imho, made huge tactical error. 

'The Gore campaign requested that the votes in three counties be recounted by hand. Florida state law at the time allowed the candidate to request a manual recount by protesting the results of at least three precincts.[31] The county canvassing board would then decide whether to recount as well as the method of the recount in those three precincts.[32] If the board discovered an error, they were then authorized to recount the ballots.[33]

'The trial of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris was a response from the Bush campaign to state litigation against extending the statutory deadlines for the manual recounts. Besides deadlines, also in dispute were the criteria that each county's canvassing board would use in examining the overvotes and/or undervotes. Numerous local court rulings went both ways, some ordering recounts because the vote was so close and others declaring that a selective manual recount in a few heavily Democratic counties would be unfair.

Eventually, the Gore campaign appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered the recount to proceed. The Bush campaign subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which took up the case Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board on December 1. On December 4, the U.S. Supreme Court returned this matter to the Florida Supreme Court with an order vacating its earlier decision. In its opinion, the Supreme Court cited several areas where the Florida Supreme Court had violated both the federal and Florida constitutions. The Court further held that it had "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons given by the Florida Supreme Court for its decision. The Florida Supreme Court clarified its ruling on this matter while the United States Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore.

I know,  wiki, but I think it's accurate.

2000. The year I gave up politics. Until I didn't. An uncomfortable 8 years. I thought I had forgotten Katherine Harris. ugh

And I look forward to voting for Hillary and wish and hope for ez voting and and a clear winner.

OT and very sorry. Difficult to move. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by NewDigs

[BoogieBurns]

36 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

All that matters!?!?!?

I'm saying that calling to concede is the thing Trump doesn't sound like he's willing to do. Not that step one was all that mattered in 2000, it was that we can't even compare the candidates to Bush and Gore because we can't get past step one. 

[Macbeth]

I am sorry to rain on the party, but after being fooled by Obama's "Yes we can"  I swore I would look very closely before voting for another main stream candidate,  as they are vetted and approved by Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex.   

I know people are relieved that Hillary is finally winning in the polls.  About time the media decided to take down Trump,   Having made so much money off of  him, they still couldn't let him win.   They have a scruple.  It's an embarrassment that he was ever nominated.

But Hillary is such a war hawk.  I am so tired of war being the only option, and her stance against Putin scares the crap out of me.  Are we really going to go to war against Russia??  She evaded Wallace's question on whether or not she would order a Russian pilot to be shot down if he violated  the no-fly zone she wants in Syria.  Really Hillary??   Their nukes can reach Washington.  Do you think a bunker can save you?

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/21/hillary-clinton-admitted-in-2013-that-a-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians-but-still-wants-one/

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

I find it unethical to vote for any candidate who wants to start a war of aggression. 

[EyewatchTV211]

Another interesting article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/21/donald-trump-rolled-back-gains-american-women-torrent-misogyny

[NewDigs]

15 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

I'm saying that calling to concede is the thing Trump doesn't sound like he's willing to do. Not that step one was all that mattered in 2000, it was that we can't even compare the candidates to Bush and Gore because we can't get past step one. 

What you quoted from my post was, supposed to be, a joke. Hyperbole. It was in response to another's post. The 2000 recount is the thing-that-will-not-die. Hopefully we'll learn something from it.

I agree with you but we will need to eventually get past step one. 

I am more worried that he has been pounding this rigged drum so loudly for so long that even after a potentially dragged-out StepOne there will be many many who will never accept her legitimacy. Polite gracious phone call or not.

[NewDigs]

I sometimes wonder what would have happened in 2008 if TedK hadn't gotten sick and later died. I thought Hillary was on a pretty clear path then but, imho, when TK basically threw his support to Obama because Obama promised to shepherd TK's affordable-med-insurance-for-all plan through Congress it was over.

My memory ain't 100% but I remember thinking at that time that Hillary was toast.

And frankly, I thought her path would be less fraught this time around. Live and learn. More years, more baggage.

Edited October 22, 2016 by NewDigs
Change 2012 to 2008

[biakbiak]

14 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Brought over from Trump's thread, since he has enough pages and this thread is about half.

Ah the infamous What difference does it make? senario. Haha, just a little ribbing. I think it made a difference when she ran the first time, yes? I find myself wondering if she would be here if there had been more than Bernie and that other guy during the primaries . I believe deals where made to clear her path. (Inner thoughts shouting in my head: Oh yeah! That's what I am supposed to be doing, finding that link from my other post about the Clinton Foundation! It's hard to do because I don't ask for links (unless it is something funny) and I got sidetracked trying to find the link that says Trump is a crack head.)  

It's really not that hard Clinton Foundation tax returns since it was created!

3 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

I sometimes wonder what would have happened in 2012 if TedK hadn't gotten sick and died. I thought Hillary was on a pretty clear path then but, imho, when TK basically threw his support to Obama because Obama promised to shepherd TK's affordable-med-insurance-for-all plan through Congress it was over.

My memory ain't 100% but I remember thinking at that time that Hillary was toast.

And frankly, I thought her path would be less fraught this time around. Live and learn. More years, more baggage.

Ted Kennedy died in 09.

[NewDigs]

9 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Ted Kennedy died in 09.

Gah! My head my head!

Changed post to 2008.

Thanks!

Edited October 22, 2016 by NewDigs

[Kitty Redstone]

1 hour ago, NewDigs said:

I am more worried that he has been pounding this rigged drum so loudly for so long that even after a potentially dragged-out StepOne there will be many many who will never accept her legitimacy. Polite gracious phone call or not.

Don't worry!  These people would have existed regardless.  Sure, they'll grumble and complain but that's ok - they'll go back to their lives soon enough and may even come to realize that Donald ramped up their fears (about voting, about Hillary) in order to stroke his own ego.