What's wrong with Hillary?

[SkepticThinker]

Isn't it bizarre that some Trump supporters point to Hillary's "flip-flopping" whereas Trump has shown us the he can "flip-flop" between the morning and evening on one single day such as he recently just did one day about a week ago on immigration. [notice that this really isn't a question]

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Can you really imagine someone who supports LGBTQ rights looking at Hillary's imperfect record on this topic and deciding to vote for Trump because of it? Would someone who cares about LGBTQ rights decide to vote for someone who says he disagrees with the Supreme court decision to allow same-sex marriage and would open up the door for states to ban it? Would they vote for a ticket that includes Mike Pence who championed the discriminatory rfra? If you believe this please keep bringing up the issue of LGBTQ and equal rights.

It's part of the ridiculous "both sides are the same" bullcrap. I mean really, I'm sure that VP Pence would be a great defender of LGBTQ rights.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I was just thinking the same thing.

It is a double standard that the corporate media has perpetuated. Apparently it's OK for Trump to change his stance on immigration in one week despite the fact that it's one of the core parts of his campaign. Yet if HRC even slightly deviates from a position she held decades ago, ER MAH GERD SHAY'S A FLIP-FLOPPUR!!!!

 

[metis]

I was just thinking the same thing.

Proof that great minds think alike!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

If LGT rights were the only thing the voter you speak of cares about, I imagine they will vote for Hillary. If the rest of their life / concerns go unmet, but they get to marry someone of whatever gender they currently identify with is the same, then on that count, they'll be satisfied.

Those words do not suggest that you think gay marriage is a very big issue.

 

[Acim]

Those words do not suggest that you think gay marriage is a very big issue.

I do not think marriage, in general, is a big issue for what government needs to be concerned about.

If government is going to be involved, just allow all of what consenting adults may wish to do.

 

[Acim]

It is a double standard that the corporate media has perpetuated. Apparently it's OK for Trump to change his stance on immigration in one week despite the fact that it's one of the core parts of his campaign. Yet if HRC even slightly deviates from a position she held decades ago, ER MAH GERD SHAY'S A FLIP-FLOPPUR!!!!

I see both as being hounded by the media that opposes them when the change is made. It is bizarre to me that you paint it this way.

Trump was very strong on immigration in primaries. He then hints at softening up, and opposing media treats that as full flip. Let's see what his policy speech tomorrow says on that matter before we decide if its a full flip.

Before the speech and before the alleged flip in last week his stance is/was:
- build a wall (Mexico pays for it)
- deport all illegal immigrants, allow them back in if they go through the legal process (or how immigration is supposed to work)
- do not grant amnesty or anything resembling full citizenship, simply because they are in the country now and there is no other (humane) choice to make

I predict he'll bend a little on the last two, but will still favor deportation (as really everyone already does, or as Obama is currently doing). I think he'll allow amnesty that doesn't remotely guarantee full citizenship.

A full flip would be he no longer sees a wall as necessary, thinks deportation ought to be done either not at all or rarely, and does favor amnesty that guarantees full citizenship to immigrants who are here illegally.

With Hillary on SSM, I truly believe it is already acknowledged in this thread that it is a full flip. And acknowledge that it was for political expedience - or unpopular before to have the principled position of favoring SSM, but popular now to have that position.

 

[fantome profane]

If LGT rights were the only thing the voter you speak of cares about, I imagine they will vote for Hillary. If the rest of their life / concerns go unmet, but they get to marry someone of whatever gender they currently identify with is the same, then on that count, they'll be satisfied.

Sure, and I don't want to characterise anyone or any group as a one issue voter(s). But just pointing out that this issue favours Hillary. So please keep bringing it up as often as possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news today.....
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...n-physicians-and-surgeons-aaps-300325065.html

TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 8, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Concerns about Hillary Clinton's health are "serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records." Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern."

 

[Spiderman]

At least she has a sense of humor and even willing to mildly mock and laugh at herself and her quirks. She reminds me of my mom

 

[Quetzal]

In the news today.....
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...n-physicians-and-surgeons-aaps-300325065.html

In a surprise twist, Bernie comes roaring over the hill to take her place, rejuvenates the young votes and completely steam rolls Trump. (I won't ever give it up)

 

[Spiderman]

In a surprise twist, Bernie comes roaring over the hill to take her place, rejuvenates the young votes and completely steam rolls Trump. (I won't ever give it up)

Wait! Bernie is still in the race?

 

[Quetzal]

Wait! Bernie is still in the race?

Nah, but if for whatever reason the Hawk has to take a back seat, Bernie might drive for awhile.

 

[YmirGF]

Nah, but if for whatever reason the Hawk has to take a back seat, Bernie might drive for awhile.

I think you also might have mass suicides over a the DNC headquarters if that was to come to pass.

And let's not forget that the odious Julian Assange has a few more little stink-bombs up his sleeve.

 

[Spiderman]

If that is really Hillary and Bill playing the clintons in "Hillary Rodham Gump ", she deserves to be president :

That was a tear jerker *sniff sniff *

Whether she and Billy or Forest Trump get into office, either way, comedians will have a ball

 

[Underhill]

It is funny.

It's also funny that the very thing she was being interviewed about when she first alleged a "vast right wing conspiracy" (on January 27, 1998,) the recent breaking of the story about sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky -- which Bill Clinton had outright lied about just a day earlier (January 26, 1998) -- was an accusation later shown to be confirmed by DNA testing of Monica's dress as being evidence he did, in fact, have sexual relations with her.

Yet, people continue to repeat this phrase -- as though a vast right wing conspiracy has been shown to exist, when...actually...the opposite was demonstrated. He actually did do what he had been accused of doing.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

Oh come on. Yes, he lied. But that has nothing to do with the 'vast right wing conspiracy' she is talking about. The entire Ken Star investigation was a witch hunt by a partisan bum out for blood. Feel free to tell me why a guy hired to investigate a land deal was asking about a blowjob in the first place? The whole thing was absurdity stacked on top of absurdity.

Denying this today, after seeing how the Republicans spent tens of millions politicizing a embassy attack, is just nuts. The only thing that makes the notion of a conspiracy questionable is the fact that the right wing does these things right out in the open.

 

[`mud]

Doing the usual......as usual !
~
'mud

 

[Revoltingest]

In a surprise twist, Bernie comes roaring over the hill to take her place, rejuvenates the young votes and completely steam rolls Trump. (I won't ever give it up)

I could live with that.

 

[4consideration]

Oh come on. Yes, he lied. But that has nothing to do with the 'vast right wing conspiracy' she is talking about. The entire Ken Star investigation was a witch hunt by a partisan bum out for blood. Feel free to tell me why a guy hired to investigate a land deal was asking about a blowjob in the first place? The whole thing was absurdity stacked on top of absurdity.

I said it was funny that the very interview where she used that expression for the first time was an interview done as a response to the allegations about Monica Lewinsky. I find it funny. The statement was an "of course" he's not guilty sort of response, because she was maintaining this was one of many untrue allegations, all part of a conspiracy --- when it was later learned, it was, in fact, true he did have sexual relations with her.

I also don't care about the blow jobs he got.

I do care about the "blow up jobs" he ordered to start the day before his impeachment hearing in December of 1998 -- orders I think were given for unjustified bombings done as a distraction of the American people from him, and for personal, political reasons.

I'm not going to derail this thread by going into the details on that, but if you're interested, I discussed that matter over a number of posts beginning with my post #13 on this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/since-hillary-believes-in-conspiracy-theories.190472/

Denying this today, after seeing how the Republicans spent tens of millions politicizing a embassy attack, is just nuts. The only thing that makes the notion of a conspiracy questionable is the fact that the right wing does these things right out in the open.

You can think it's nuts if you want to. That's cool. I think it's nuts to trust the Clintons (either, or both of them,) enough to put them in political office, considering their record in public life.

 

[Spiderman]

I said it was funny that the very interview where she used that expression for the first time was an interview done as a response to the allegations about Monica Lewinsky. I find it funny. The statement was an "of course" he's not guilty sort of response, because she was maintaining this was one of many untrue allegations, all part of a conspiracy --- when it was later learned, it was, in fact, true he did have sexual relations with her.

I also don't care about the blow jobs he got.

I do care about the "blow up jobs" he ordered to start the day before his impeachment hearing in December of 1998 -- orders I think were given for unjustified bombings done as a distraction of the American people from him, and for personal, political reasons.

I'm not going to derail this thread by going into the details on that, but if you're interested, I discussed that matter over a number of posts beginning with my post #13 on this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/since-hillary-believes-in-conspiracy-theories.190472/



You can think it's nuts if you want to. That's cool. I think it's nuts to trust the Clintons (either, or both of them,) enough to put them in political office, considering their record in public life.

Props for 4consideration. My respect for you made a great climb