This topic has been locked by a moderator.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s exactly the problem.
Sheesh.
Well I sure hope you’re enjoying Trump.
Why would I be?
Dunno, I guess I misread what you were saying. Seemed like you were saying Trump and Clinton were equally bad choices.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Yes.
If you say so.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Yes.
If you say so.
I do!
I love this thread.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Yes.
If you say so.
In spite of the last page of me temporarily being the biggest Clinton-hater in the room, I say so too. Senator & Secretary of State alone put her above her husband, Reagan and many other recent Presidents experience-wise. She also redefined the First Lady role (much to the chagrin of many who preferred the tea parties), and prior to that, when her husband was Governor of Arkansas, I’d say she had the more distinguished career of the two Clintons. I’d say her closest recent equivalent in terms of experience was maybe Lyndon Johnson.
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.
I will have to revisit this when I’m an old man, but personally I would like to save that kind of leering for younger women.
Give those dames some respect!
Younger women? Are these young enough for you?
https://www.change.org/p/daily-mail-mailonline-stop-the-daily-mail-sexualising-children
8 years old, 12 years old, 14 years old, 15 years old…
Kind of a nasty jab mate, I didn’t get that from what he was saying.
I don’t see it as a jab - it certainly wasn’t meant as one - just a question to highlight some of the content of what the Mail is about. The leering about younger women, thankfully, seems to apply to over 18’s - though not necessarily in the Daily Mail’s (or some of it’s readers) case…
Being from the UK, I immediately knew you were referring to the Daily Mail’s well known reputation for leering after underage girls (while often calling for pedophiles to me burned at the stake on the same page). Outside of the UK, people might not know this paper’s rep and might think you were insulting them, which you clearly weren’t.
For those still unclear, this clip from comedy panel show HIGNFY sums it up succinctly…
That is a good point mate - which sometimes I forget posting on here (to many US users, as opposed to the UK).
I apologise to Aldreraan for any offence my question caused.
I apologise to you. I’m not as U.K. literate as those from there so I took it differently than you meant it.
😃
No apology needed from you mate - though thank you anyway my friend.
A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…
Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com - includes info on how to ask for a fan project and how to search for projects and threads on OT•com.
A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)
Take your time to look around this site before posting… Do NOT just lazily make yet another ‘link request’ post - or a new thread asking for projects.
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
Man, you sure have a high bar.
I love this thread.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Yes.
If you say so.
I do!
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
Man, you sure have a high bar.
If he’s reserving that term until someone unseats Jefferson as the most qualified Presidential candidate ever, he’s in for a long wait. The trend is going in the other direction.
Since Trump is once again tweeting (rehashing, if you like) the same tired nonsense about Clinton, Russia, Uranium, etc. that gets passed around some of the more unsavory parts of the internet (including this part of the internet)…
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
Man, you sure have a high bar.
If he’s reserving that term until someone unseats Jefferson as the most qualified Presidential candidate ever, he’s in for a long wait. The trend is going in the other direction.
YOU TAKE THAT BACK
THIS FORUM IS GREATER THAN IT EVER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY
AND SOON IT WILL SMELL NICER TOO
Lolololol.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-harassment-20170328-story.html
President Trump is citing Bill Clinton’s famous sexual harassment battle in his effort to block a California woman’s lawsuit claiming he lied about groping her in the Beverly Hills Hotel in 2007.
Problem is, Clinton lost that bid for legal immunity when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1997 that the chief executive is not shielded from responding to a civil suit regarding his private behavior.
Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, had sued Clinton for alleged sexual harassment during an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room when he was the state’s governor. The justices said President Clinton could be forced to answer questions under oath.
But this week, Trump’s lawyers cited the Clinton vs. Jones case in a legal filing in New York and contended that it “immunizes President Trump from being sued in this action while he is in office.”
And more lolololol.
Trump’s lawyers filed a legal memorandum on Monday arguing that the president was entitled to delay further proceedings in the case, citing his “exceptionally busy schedule particularly during his first 100 days in office.”
Maybe he should slow down on the golf.
Since Trump is once again tweeting (rehashing, if you like) the same tired nonsense about Clinton, Russia, Uranium, etc. that gets passed around some of the more unsavory parts of the internet (including this part of the internet)…
Saw that too. But with Politifact you have to read the full article, not the headlines. They’re the same outfit that promoted something they’d twice rated half true to “Lie of the Year” a few years back. They didn’t hide that fact in their article, but the headline was a clear case of clickbait. This seems fairer, but still, I’m wary of Politifact.
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
Man, you sure have a high bar.
For the Presidency? Yes I do, especially with all the problems we face in today’s world.
I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.
I guess it depends on what you mean by being qualified. Does she have a lot of experience? Yes. But when I look at whether or not someone is qualified, I look beyond experience and try to determine from all I know of the person, how good/bad the person would be at being President. I am not seeing what would make her a great President.
When wiping the floor with Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts, and Wilson just isn’t enough, you know you’re facing a 21st Century Problem.
I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.
I guess it depends on what you mean by being qualified. Does she have a lot of experience? Yes. But when I look at whether or not someone is qualified, I look beyond experience and try to determine from all I know of the person, how good/bad the person would be at being President. I am not seeing what would make her a great President.
Qualifications are one thing, policy choices are another. I rate Bush I very, very high on experience, but I think his policy choices were middling to bad. Nor do I see him as a particularly great President, except in contrast with his son. I don’t think Clinton would have been a great President. But she’d have been competent–maybe not too different than Bush I–and that’s sure seeming like a lot these days.
Since Trump is once again tweeting (rehashing, if you like) the same tired nonsense about Clinton, Russia, Uranium, etc. that gets passed around some of the more unsavory parts of the internet (including this part of the internet)…
Saw that too. But with Politifact you have to read the full article, not the headlines. They’re the same outfit that promoted something they’d twice rated half true to “Lie of the Year” a few years back. They didn’t hide that fact in their article, but the headline was a clear case of clickbait. This seems fairer, but still, I’m wary of Politifact.
Noted. However the headline is “Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweets about Hillary Clinton and Russia.”
When wiping the floor with Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts, and Wilson just isn’t enough, you know you’re facing a 21st Century Problem.
?
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
So many republicans liked her before the elections. For examples:
Mike Huckabee called her a “policy genius”.
David Petraeus said she’d make a “tremendous” president.
Condoleeza Rice said “she’s very tough”, “she’s got the right instincts”.
Lindsey Graham said she is “extremely well respected throughout the world” and has a work ethic “second to none”. He also said that she was "one of the most effective secretary of states, greatest ambassadors for the American people that I have known in my lifetime."
John McCain called her an “international star” who did a “tremendous job” as secretary of state.
But come election cycle, the republicans decided to trash her so they could have Trump instead. I still am in shock over it. With all due respect to the many basically good republican people around the country, I can’t help but consider a vote for Trump over Hillary to be extreme gullibility at best, and/or frankly disgusting. Which leaves me with unanswered questions about my own U.S. culture that produced this behavior. By all logic and morals, this should have been the easiest vote ever.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
On paper Hillary was extremely qualified, but if you think that she was terrible at all of her previous jobs then I see why you would call her unqualified.
The Person in Question
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11.
There are lots of opinions on that matter, but I’m using the Nuremburg standard. The AUMF was a blank check to someone who’d already made it very clear he planned to attack the Iraqis on any dreamed up pretext. If Bush had been a little more guarded about his plans, or if there was ever any credible link between Iraq and Sept 11, there’d be more room for argument. As it was, Hillary knew the Iraqis posed no threat, and she knew she was authorizing an attack on them. The only thing she didn’t know is that we weren’t just planning to attack, we were planning to occupy–and that there would be political fallout because of that. Had she known that, she may have calculated differently.
She was fortunate that Trump was also in the “I supported the invasion until it started losing popularity” club, or he may have gotten more votes than her.
Oh you mean the Iraq Resolution? Well that’s a bit different, though we still should remember people thought they had WMDs at the time.