Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[vitterd]

Cruz would destroy Hillary...absolutely annihilate her.

"If one goes down the road of scandals with Hillary, it would consume more than a two-hour debate,” Cruz joked. “And frankly, the key to winning in 2016 is running a populist campaign of hard-working men and women against the bipartisan corruption of Washington, which Hillary embodies.”

“My dad came to America with nothing, washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour. When I was in high school, my parents went bankrupt,” Cruz said. In contrast, he noted, “Hillary and Bill Clinton have made hundreds of millions of dollars exploiting their government service.”

Cruz didn’t seem at all worried about Hillary’s power to drive the narrative in 2016. Why the confidence?

“Hillary Clinton hasn’t even driven a car since 1996.”

Cruz can't even handle Trump, Carson and CNBC. Hillary would wipe the stage with him.....too bad he will never see the stage against her. It would be a dem dream to run against Cruz.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Cruz would make her look so bad the Hildabeast would walk off the debate stage crying.

Politically, I've never felt so helpless and disheartened than when John McCain turned to a lady in the audience and said, "Ma'am, you have nothing to fear from an OBama presidency" ##)

At that moment I knew the fix was in.

That, plus the fact Congress investigated McCain's eligibility, while completely ignoring the Kenyan's bullshit background.

At this point, only a Cruz or Trump presidency will restore my faith in a political system gone completely off the rails.

 

[ScottL]

I disagree, the committee caught her in several lies. Without the help of the liberal media and Dem members of the committee she had no chance and they propped her up like she was a winner, wrong. Benghazi is not over and what she told the familes when the bodies arrived after it was revealed she already knew the video had nothing to do with it tells you all you need to know about her. Like penalizing the maker of the video was going to lessen the loss of the families, right. Look at the Gov election in Kentucky, a big indication that the Dem party is losing ground going into next year's election. She is the best they can come up which is absolutely pathetic. Watch Obama go for a third term, would not surprise me at all if Hillary goes down before the election. But bringing up Benghazi will not lose points with potential voters who are yet undeceded.

Russ I am not saying you are wrong. Your team might have won in the stats but they didn't cover and the bookies won't pay ya.
You said it yourself -
"Without the help of the liberal media and Dem members of the committee she had no chance and they propped her up."
Well she had that help and even if undeservedly she cleared the hurdle so in the eyes of most it's done.
"She is the best they can come up which is absolutely pathetic."
Of course, but look at the IQ of the average voter!
"Watch Obama go for a third term, would not surprise me at all..."
Now you are hitting the bong Russell

 

[ScottL]

I guess the same way Bush does. Do you remember 9-11-2001?

Every time you post that nonsense this will be my stock response:
Bush was president for 8 months. The entire security apparatus is passed from one administration to the next. What Clinton handed to Bush consisted of agencies who weren't even cooperating with each other regarding the sharing of intelligence and information. And Clinton already admitted underestimating the AQ threat, despite other attacks they had already executed. 9/11 was planned before Bush took office. Many of the proposals of the 9/11 commission were meant to shore up security flaws that persisted throughout Clinton's terms.

 

[ScottL]

Cruz would destroy Hillary...absolutely annihilate her.

This is what you guys are not getting - IT DOESN"T MATTER. Why? Because Cruz will have to destroy her in the eyes of Joe Public, not the eyes of Joe C, Russ or Scott L. There is a lot I don't care for about Cruz. But people with basic intelligence who are not looking for a caretaker gov't all know he is better qualified than her. The problem is he could thoroughly thump her in a debate and you still are left with all the nitwits in the Sharia spoof thread that will be voting for her.

 

[vitterd]

Every time you post that nonsense this will be my stock response:
Bush was president for 8 months. The entire security apparatus is passed from one administration to the next. What Clinton handed to Bush consisted of agencies who weren't even cooperating with each other regarding the sharing of intelligence and information. And Clinton already admitted underestimating the AQ threat, despite other attacks they had already executed. 9/11 was planned before Bush took office. Many of the proposals of the 9/11 commission were meant to shore up security flaws that persisted throughout Clinton's terms.

But blaming Hillary for the Benghazi deaths isn't nonsense?

Why is everything that happens on " obamas watch" his responsibility but what happens on Bush watch isn't? 9-11, economic collapse, horrific handling of Katrina.....none of it bush fault.

 

[vitterd]

This is what you guys are not getting - IT DOESN"T MATTER. Why? Because Cruz will have to destroy her in the eyes of Joe Public, not the eyes of Joe C, Russ or Scott L. There is a lot I don't care for about Cruz. But people with basic intelligence who are not looking for a caretaker gov't all know he is better qualified than her. The problem is he could thoroughly thump her in a debate and you still are left with all the nitwits in the Sharia spoof thread that will be voting for her.

Cruz could drool and shit his pants on stage and these guys would declare him the winner in a debate against Hillary. Is there anything you've seen from him in any republican debate that you think has any dem nervous? Dems would be thrilled in Cruz got the nomination.

 

[SheriffJoe]

This is what you guys are not getting - IT DOESN"T MATTER. Why? Because Cruz will have to destroy her in the eyes of Joe Public, not the eyes of Joe C, Russ or Scott L. There is a lot I don't care for about Cruz. But people with basic intelligence who are not looking for a caretaker gov't all know he is better qualified than her. The problem is he could thoroughly thump her in a debate and you still are left with all the nitwits in the Sharia spoof thread that will be voting for her.

I get it, Scott. In fact, I'll expand on your thoughts...

Insiders estimate the gaystream media bias in national elections to be worth about 15-20 points in the polls.

So, if we have a Republican candidates who will not only smash our political "enemies" (as Hillary and Hussein call us), but more importantly, even the playing field by smashing the Dem accomplices masking as 'journalists', our party will win landslide elections: 2+2 = 4

Primaries are mostly inside baseball, so gaystream media bias isn't a huge deal like we witnessed at the CNBC debates. However, it is CRITICAL during the NATIONAL DEBATES - one of the few times the American people get to hear Republican common sense as the antidote to elitist left wing insanity UNFILTERED.

Go back to the 2012, after Romney schooled the Kenyan in the first debate which had the gaystream media in a panic. Remember the second debate when that fat cow Candy Crowley sandbagged Romney with Obama's talking points? That critical moment turned the election, which would NOT have happened with Ted Cruz as our nominee.

Cruz's shining moment at the last CNBC debate could be a game-changer....if the GOP seizes the moment and DEMANDS a level playing field going forward. No matter who our nominee is, if NBC or CNN with their lib moderators get the first national debate, the GOP must insist Fox News with their conservatives get the second....and so on.

Always remember that 15-20 point bias...our nominee must not only defeat their candidate, but the shameless gaystream media in the tank for Democrats.

Needless to say, Barry would probably be back community organizing right now in his backyard Chicago slum had Ted Cruz been the GOP nominee in 2008 or 2012.

 

[vitterd]

No republican was winning in 2008 or in 2012. Cruz would have been beaten worse than McCain or Romney.

Ted Cruz whining in last debate about the moderators will only play with the far right who actually believe the media is trying to sabotage them.

 

[SheriffJoe]

No republican was winning in 2008 or in 2012. Cruz would have been beaten worse than McCain or Romney.

And you know this how?

Ted Cruz whining in last debate about the moderators will only play with the far right who actually believe the media is trying to sabotage them.

Far from 'whining', Ted Cruz changed the debate landscape as the GOPe cancelled the following NBC debate. Then Trump seized the moment by opting out of the RNC process altogether. None of that would have happened without Cruz's brilliant performance. That's what leaders do.

You'll recall Ted Cruz also single-handedly shut down the government (at least temporarily) by -again - speaking truth to power and forcing those weasels in the Congress to do what they were elected to do: STOP OBAMA! Remember how the gaystream media warned everyone how Cruz's "Sam I am" filibuster would hurt the GOP in 2014? lmao That's what leaders do.

Cruz was right about Obamacare all along...and the rest of the gutless RINOs surrendered. Had Cruz been Speaker, Obamacare would be history by now or the Kenyan wouldn't have a dime to fund his radical regime. That's what leaders do.

"McConnell very effective Democratic leader" -- Ted Cruz k:

 

[vitterd]

And you know this how?



Far from 'whining', Ted Cruz changed the debate landscape as the GOPe cancelled the following NBC debate. Then Trump seized the moment by opting out of the RNC process altogether. None of that would have happened without Cruz's brilliant performance. That's what leaders do.

You'll recall Ted Cruz also single-handedly shut down the government (at least temporarily) by -again - speaking truth to power and forcing those weasels in the Congress to do what they were elected to do: STOP OBAMA! Remember how the gaystream media warned everyone how Cruz's "Sam I am" filibuster would hurt the GOP in 2014? lmao That's what leaders do.

Cruz was right about Obamacare all along...and the rest of the gutless RINOs surrendered. Had Cruz been Speaker, Obamacare would be history by now or the Kenyan wouldn't have a dime to fund his radical regime. That's what leaders do.

"McConnell very effective Democratic leader" -- Ted Cruz k:

George Bush made it impossible for republican in 2008 and Obama campaign, ground game in particular, was too strong in 2012 for any republican candidate to have a realistic chance......Cruz would have been bad choice then and now.

Shutting down the govt is hardly leadership.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Ted Cruz takes Obama's DOJ nominee to the woodshed yesterday!

 

[The Guesser]

It's possible whoever emerges as the R candidate could defeat Hillary in a debate. But not by using the Benghazi issue anymore. The R candidate will lose points bringing this event up again. Perception = Reality regardless of where the truth lies. Hillary made that committee look sillary. This Benghazi thing is burnt toast.

 

[SheriffJoe]

George Bush made it impossible for republican in 2008 and Obama campaign, ground game in particular, was too strong in 2012 for any republican candidate to have a realistic chance......Cruz would have been bad choice then and now.

Shutting down the govt is hardly leadership.

“I want to be president of the United States, and I don't want Obama to be,” he said. “But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.” - John McCain

McCain's response was met with more boos from the crowd.

face)(*^%

 

[vitterd]

“I want to be president of the United States, and I don't want Obama to be,” he said. “But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.” - John McCain

McCain's response was met with more boos from the crowd.

face)(*^%

saying someone is a decent person and you don't have to be scared of him....meant nothing to the election results.

 

[SheriffJoe]

saying someone is a decent person and you don't have to be scared of him....meant nothing to the election results.

Making the claim that no Republican could have won in 2008 is simply not true.

McCain clearly blew it down the stretch - in many ways!

 

[ScottL]

But blaming Hillary for the Benghazi deaths isn't nonsense?

Why is everything that happens on " obamas watch" his responsibility but what happens on Bush watch isn't? 9-11, economic collapse, horrific handling of Katrina.....none of it bush fault.

I don't know where your logic and reason emanates from Vit. Clearly we are not on the same wavelength. You are talking about two completely different events. Now you're adding Katrina and the economy and we're up to 4 events.

I believe I have made a valid case that Bush is not responsible for 9/11. I did not say that Hillary is responsible for Benghazi. But protecting our diplomats is her sole responsibility and she seemed quite naive and was out of touch with events in Libya and not in contact with our ambassador.

What goes into protecting our country from airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles involves way more agencies than the State Dept or White House.

Your comment above is like a guy on trial for bank robbery saying he shouldn't be convicted because the defendant in the next case is accused of rape. Bush didn't orchestrate the overthrow of Gaddafi and leave a vacuum to be filled by packs of hyenas, Hillary did.

All that matters for this thread is did Hillary screw up? The answers are probably yes. Where I differ with your opponents in here is that they think something is going to come out of it when obviously the show is over and the credits have rolled.

 

[ScottL]

Joe you need to drop this "Gaystream media" crap. It's childish and detracts from the point you are making. Yes much of the media ihas a liberal bias. But the blowjob they give Obama is metaphoric, not physical

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Clinton Calls for Exxon Probe After Company Cuts Off Foundation Funding[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

BY: Alana Goodman
November 2, 2015 2:14 pm

Hillary Clinton is calling for a federal investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change activities just months after the company neglected to renew its sponsorship of the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.
ExxonMobil, which is being accused by global warming activists of misleading the public about climate change, has given between $ 1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and sponsored the CGI annual meeting in 2014. But this year, the oil giant was one of six major corporations that stopped sponsoring the event, according to USA Today.
Clinton said last week that the Department of Justice should investigate ExxonMobil for allegedly withholding data related to climate change, saying that there is “a lot of evidence they misled people.”
But despite Clinton’s comments, the Democratic presidential frontrunner has seemed willing to work with the oil giant until very recently, the International Business Times reports. And there is no indication that she’s planning to cut her financial ties with the company:

The Clinton Foundation has accepted at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, despite the company’s history of financing challenges to climate science. And Clinton’s State Department touted ExxonMobil as an example of how America should look at Iraq as “a business opportunity.” […]
Though ExxonMobil has stopped sponsoring the Clinton Foundation, ties between the company and the Clintons remain. Clinton’s campaign listed an ExxonMobil lobbyist as one of its top fundraisers, and the company’s employees have donated $8,900 to her 2016 campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton’s campaign chair, has lobbied for Golden Pass Products LLC, a company part-owned by ExxonMobil. Podesta has raised$130,000 for her campaign.
The Clinton Foundation featured two ExxonMobil board members at its conference this year. The foundation has also accepted donations from other major oil firms that have a financial interest in fighting climate change legislation. Data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that her presidential campaign has accepted more than $159,000 from donors in the oil and gas industry, making her one of the top five recipients of the industry’s campaign money.
​

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]How to Beat Hillary Clinton[/h]Column: Remind the American people that she’s untrustworthy, unlikable, and extreme
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton suspends her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008 / AP​

BY: Matthew Continetti
November 6, 2015 5:00 am

One year until Election Day. Where things stand: The Republican race is in turmoil while the Democratic nomination is all but assured. The FBI alone can stop Hillary Clinton from appearing on your ballot next November. But that is unlikely to happen. If only wishing made it so.
She wins the nomination. Then? To hearsome tell it, Clinton’s election as president is a safe bet. I won’t lie: I think these commentators make a strong case, but not an entirely convincing one. There are too many factors at work. Inside the Democratic Party, the Clinton Restoration is almost complete. The country at large, however, despite the Democratic advantages of demographics, population distribution, and near cultural hegemony, remains wary. Clinton is a vulnerable nominee. She can be beaten.
How? Let’s stipulate that campaign effects are overstated. The economy and the popularity of the incumbent, in my view, are far more important. But candidates also matter. Whether she is liked or disliked, whether she is trusted or distrusted, whether she is someone with whom voters identify or someone from whom they recoil, whether she spends her days proclaiming her message or in damage control—all of these factors shape voter impressions, voter enthusiasm.
Which is where Clinton falls short. Sure, she’s preferable to Bernie Sanders. Who isn’t? Sanders appeals to the left of the left. He’s a fringe figure. Of course Hillary beats him. This is news?
Sure, Hillary did okay before the House Benghazi Committee. Trust me: Looking more sympathetic than members of Congress isn’t an achievement. It’s a freebie. All you have to do is show up and not take the Fifth. The media were always going to say Clinton left the hearing untouched. They’ve never thought Benghazi was a real story.
But look at what’s happened since Clinton’s “great 10 days.” The more one examines the statements she made before Congress, the more they are revealed to be not entirely true. The polling says the electorate has the same impression of her that it’s had for some time now: She can’t be trusted. Twenty-seven percent in the Journal poll says she is honest. And “Clinton has the lowest rating for honesty” in the Quinnipiac poll, “as American voters say 60-36 percent she is not honest and trustworthy.”
You’ll hear pundits say trustworthiness doesn’t matter because the public didn’t trust Bill Clinton in 1996 but reelected him anyway. Ignore them. In 1996 Clinton was the incumbent, the economy was growing, and he was in a three-way race with two unsympathetic opponents. It’s not just that the public distrusts Hillary Clinton. It’s that its distrust is related to its unflattering view of her as unlikable and out of touch.
Clinton’s unfavorable rating according to the Huffington Post’s Pollster Trend: 49 percent. In the Quinnipiac poll it’s 52 percent. And she’s underwater in the “cares about my needs” question: 53 percent in the Q-poll says she does not.
That’s a terrible result for a Democrat. It was Clinton’s own pollster, Joel Benenson, who wrote in 2012 that Republicans lost because “voters simply didn’t believe that Mr. Romney was on their side.” Will they believe that of Hillary next November?
The job of the Republican nominee is to make sure they do not. You do it by reminding the public, day after day, that Clinton can’t be trusted. Trade, same-sex marriage, crime, foreign policy—she’ll betray you whenever it suits her political needs. She lied about the Benghazi video; she lied about her email; she lied about Sidney Blumenthal. That’s what she does. She lies. The Republican nominee will have to say this repeatedly, just as Donald Trump brands his opposition as low energy. It will take discipline. But it will also reinforce voters’ suspicions—and damage Clinton.
Republicans won’t need to paint her as unlikable. She’ll take care of that herself. Eventually she’ll commit a gaffe that she’ll spend three days apologizing for. It’s in her nature. Hillary Clinton is nowhere near her husband in terms of political talent. She’s isolated, living in a bubble for decades. Every so often she lets the “real” Hillary out and ends up regretting it. The authentic Clinton isn’t the woman who appeared at the debate or before Congress. It’s the Clinton who, when asked if she had wiped clean her private server, sneered, “With a cloth or something?”
The risk for the GOP is to go overboard, to so eagerly define Clinton as unlikable that she has the opportunity to play the victim. She did it with Rick Lazio in 2000, and with Barack Obama in 2008. Better to focus on how she can’t be trusted, and let her unpleasantness speak for itself. It won’t remain hidden for long.
The Democrats say they have the policy advantage. They point to areas where polling suggests they are in the mainstream and the Republicans are not. They oversell their case. Republicans may not have much in the way of a middle-class economic agenda. But that is not to say the Democrats are totally in sync with the American public.
On the contrary: Clinton is moving left on gun control despite public opposition. Her interest in Australia’s confiscation policy was so extreme her campaign walked it back. The election results in Virginia, where Michael Bloomberg spent $2 million in a failed attempt to win the state senate for Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe, show just how unpopular limitations on the Second Amendment are.
Then there’s crime. Criminal justice reform is the policy fad of the day. Clinton has eagerly embraced it. Why Democrats would want crime to return as an issue is beyond me, but I’m no Democrat.
President Obama’s Justice Department released 6,000 prisoners last month, “the largest one-time release of federal prisoners.” Likely Obama will release additional nonviolent offenders before he leaves office. If but one of these former inmates commits a violent crime, Hillary Clinton will own it. And any Republican who ignores the issue will deserve to lose.
Unfair? Far more fair, I’d say, than suggesting Mitt Romney was responsible for the death of a woman from cancer, as saying he paid no income taxes for 10 years.
Clinton carries a burden. She’s running for her party’s third term in the White House. Her problem is not that the laws of history will prevent her from winning. It’s that she will have to answer for her predecessor.
The two dubious achievements of Barack Obama’s presidency—Obamacare and the Iran deal—are both unpopular and uncertain to survive in their current forms. Clinton has to defend them. She’ll also have to defend moving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the Supermax, which the president seems intent on doing. Criminals in the streets and KSM in Colorado—ladies and gentlemen, here is your Obama legacy.
The Obama campaign spent a fortune in the spring and summer of 2012 defining Mitt Romney as an out of touch businessman who didn’t care about workers. To beat Hillary Clinton, Republicans will spend a similar amount defining her as untrustworthy, unlikable, and aloof from the day-to-day life of people without a family foundation.
They will unapologetically portray Clinton as someone who would release convicted felons into your neighborhood even as she takes away your Second Amendment right to self-defense. They will remind the public, relentlessly, of the woeful consequences of Obamacare and the Iran deal. And yes, finally, they will do all this while projecting optimism and empathy.
A tall order, I know. But look: A race to the bottom is a race we can win.