Hillary Clinton's official kickoff speech at the Roosevelt Island Rally, 06/13/2015

[candycorn]

The usual class warfare combined with free shit giveaways.
By the way, what accomplishments does Hillary Clinton have that qualify her to be president?

8 years as FLOTUS
8 years as US Senator
4 years as Secretary of State

Probably the best resume of any candidate since Bush 41.

Lol it doesn't matter how much actual experience she has had, the rightwing will still say she's incompetent.

I asked for accomplishments, not experience. Another Billy Triple Nought fail.
And she has bombed at every one of those jobs. Remember how the White House got sued successfully for violating the open records act?

Winning an election to State wide office isn't an accomplishment? Scott Walker would disagree with you. Becoming Secretary of State isn't an accomplishment? Condi Rice would disagree with you.

Lots of people win election to state office.
Many people have been SecState.
Those arent qualifications. Nor are they particularly achievements.

Great, so Walker, Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Paul, Perry, et. al. have zero accomplishments too. Excellent.
Few persons have been Secretary of State which gives Hillary a leg-up in every comparison.

 

[Papageorgio]

It does exist, more so than before he took office.

BTW, who is your favorite candidate for this election?

So, assuming you are white, what is it you can not do with a black person now that you could do in 2007? And what has Obama done specifically to cause you not to be able to do it?

What does being able or not being able to do anything have to do with a division in the country and Obama pitting one group against another?

Well, you're saying there is a wedge between blacks and whites and Obama is responsible for it. I assume he wouldn't have had the power to put the wedge there before he was President.

IF there is this wedge you say there is...you should be able to tell us what you're not able to do with black people that you were able to do with them prior to Obama being President.

All I'm asking for is some proof of this wedge you say is there (which it isn't).
We'll get to whether Obama is responsible or if you're responsible for it (which you are ultimately) later on.

Race relations are a bigger issue now than four years ago.

And that is Obama's fault? They were big during the Rodney King beatings, trials, acquittals too. They were big when OJ was released too. When Susan Smith fingered a black man, tensions flared then too. The next President will have her share of issues to deal with.

0.0% of these tensions are Obama's fault. There is no wedge between blacks and whites much less one placed there by our President.

Obamacare pitted and drove a wedge between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and the working class.

If there is a wedge, you wouldn't know it from our hospitals where doctors see patients every day. You also wouldn't know it by looking at insurance companies who pay for most of those visits and procedures.

Again, no wedge.

Obama pitted big bad bankers that stole money from the middle class and yet never prosecuted anyone.

You're accidentally right about this; those banks that were too big to fail are still too big to fail. I'm not sure how legislation passed during Bush's administration are Obama's fault but this "wedge" between the middle class and the banks are probably big news to account holders and the banks as well because Americans still continue to bank there.

He pitted gun grabbers and those that follower the bible against the rest of the country.

Non-sense. I had four gun owners in my residence today. I have no firearms. By the way, most of them came from going to church earlier in the day. I do not attend church regularly.

I am not responsible for Obama's actions, I see the results.

No, you imagine the results. You give zero evidence of these wedges (your word)and even less evidence that any of it is Obama's fault.

So spare me your BS.

I'm sorry you find the truth so horrifying...it's amazing how silly you sound when you are forced to examine your own positions.

BTW, who are you leaning on voting for? I notice you dodge this question.

It's Summer 2015, you're asking me a question today about 17 months into the future. If she's on the ballot, it will be Hillary Clinton. If not...well...we will see.

I don't find anything horrifying. It's amazing how your opinion is no more founded in truth than the lying you do in other threads.

 

[candycorn]

So, assuming you are white, what is it you can not do with a black person now that you could do in 2007? And what has Obama done specifically to cause you not to be able to do it?

What does being able or not being able to do anything have to do with a division in the country and Obama pitting one group against another?

Well, you're saying there is a wedge between blacks and whites and Obama is responsible for it. I assume he wouldn't have had the power to put the wedge there before he was President.

IF there is this wedge you say there is...you should be able to tell us what you're not able to do with black people that you were able to do with them prior to Obama being President.

All I'm asking for is some proof of this wedge you say is there (which it isn't).
We'll get to whether Obama is responsible or if you're responsible for it (which you are ultimately) later on.

Race relations are a bigger issue now than four years ago.

And that is Obama's fault? They were big during the Rodney King beatings, trials, acquittals too. They were big when OJ was released too. When Susan Smith fingered a black man, tensions flared then too. The next President will have her share of issues to deal with.

0.0% of these tensions are Obama's fault. There is no wedge between blacks and whites much less one placed there by our President.

Obamacare pitted and drove a wedge between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and the working class.

If there is a wedge, you wouldn't know it from our hospitals where doctors see patients every day. You also wouldn't know it by looking at insurance companies who pay for most of those visits and procedures.

Again, no wedge.

Obama pitted big bad bankers that stole money from the middle class and yet never prosecuted anyone.

You're accidentally right about this; those banks that were too big to fail are still too big to fail. I'm not sure how legislation passed during Bush's administration are Obama's fault but this "wedge" between the middle class and the banks are probably big news to account holders and the banks as well because Americans still continue to bank there.

He pitted gun grabbers and those that follower the bible against the rest of the country.

Non-sense. I had four gun owners in my residence today. I have no firearms. By the way, most of them came from going to church earlier in the day. I do not attend church regularly.

I am not responsible for Obama's actions, I see the results.

No, you imagine the results. You give zero evidence of these wedges (your word)and even less evidence that any of it is Obama's fault.

So spare me your BS.

I'm sorry you find the truth so horrifying...it's amazing how silly you sound when you are forced to examine your own positions.

BTW, who are you leaning on voting for? I notice you dodge this question.

It's Summer 2015, you're asking me a question today about 17 months into the future. If she's on the ballot, it will be Hillary Clinton. If not...well...we will see.

I don't find anything horrifying. It's amazing how your opinion is no more founded in truth than the lying you do in other threads.

What lies are you imagining now little one.

 

[Papageorgio]

What does being able or not being able to do anything have to do with a division in the country and Obama pitting one group against another?

Well, you're saying there is a wedge between blacks and whites and Obama is responsible for it. I assume he wouldn't have had the power to put the wedge there before he was President.

IF there is this wedge you say there is...you should be able to tell us what you're not able to do with black people that you were able to do with them prior to Obama being President.

All I'm asking for is some proof of this wedge you say is there (which it isn't).
We'll get to whether Obama is responsible or if you're responsible for it (which you are ultimately) later on.

Race relations are a bigger issue now than four years ago.

And that is Obama's fault? They were big during the Rodney King beatings, trials, acquittals too. They were big when OJ was released too. When Susan Smith fingered a black man, tensions flared then too. The next President will have her share of issues to deal with.

0.0% of these tensions are Obama's fault. There is no wedge between blacks and whites much less one placed there by our President.

Obamacare pitted and drove a wedge between insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and the working class.

If there is a wedge, you wouldn't know it from our hospitals where doctors see patients every day. You also wouldn't know it by looking at insurance companies who pay for most of those visits and procedures.

Again, no wedge.

Obama pitted big bad bankers that stole money from the middle class and yet never prosecuted anyone.

You're accidentally right about this; those banks that were too big to fail are still too big to fail. I'm not sure how legislation passed during Bush's administration are Obama's fault but this "wedge" between the middle class and the banks are probably big news to account holders and the banks as well because Americans still continue to bank there.

He pitted gun grabbers and those that follower the bible against the rest of the country.

Non-sense. I had four gun owners in my residence today. I have no firearms. By the way, most of them came from going to church earlier in the day. I do not attend church regularly.

I am not responsible for Obama's actions, I see the results.

No, you imagine the results. You give zero evidence of these wedges (your word)and even less evidence that any of it is Obama's fault.

So spare me your BS.

I'm sorry you find the truth so horrifying...it's amazing how silly you sound when you are forced to examine your own positions.

BTW, who are you leaning on voting for? I notice you dodge this question.

It's Summer 2015, you're asking me a question today about 17 months into the future. If she's on the ballot, it will be Hillary Clinton. If not...well...we will see.

I don't find anything horrifying. It's amazing how your opinion is no more founded in truth than the lying you do in other threads.

What lies are you imagining now little one.

Have a goodnight and rest well.

 

[BULLDOG]

The usual class warfare combined with free shit giveaways.
By the way, what accomplishments does Hillary Clinton have that qualify her to be president?

Well, the main one right now is that she is so much better than all the crazies the GOP is offering. Lots of other accomplishments, but that is the main one that counts here.

 

[BULLDOG]

The usual class warfare combined with free shit giveaways.
By the way, what accomplishments does Hillary Clinton have that qualify her to be president?

She seems to be superior than the current President in lying and dividing. Considering Obama has been the best at these points, Hillary is quite experienced.

If you have been "divided" by Obama, you were not that committed to whomever you have been divided from to start with.

Obama has worked at putting a wedge between rich and poor, black and white, insurance companies and average American, doctors against the average American, bankers and average Americans and on and on. He divides to win and what is amazing is he doesn't back up his own words.

Finally, an achievement!

if 100 million people watched the speech, at least 80 Million people would of screamed back at Hillary, "Yah Bitch, It Was You And Obama That Caused All Of These {fill in the blank}n' Problems !!!!!!

You really think there re that many crazy right wingers? I don't think so.

 

[BULLDOG]

Good. I hope everyone votes democrat. I can't wait til you scumbag Rightwingers get embarrassed in another presidential election.

You'll wait a long time.
Hillary will be the nominee. Failing indictment and conviction of course.
She is the old established candidate with nothing new to offer following 2 terms in the same party.
The GOP will nominate a younger energetic person with new ideas. History shows in every such contest the younger person wins. Every one.
Obama won the second term only because of high voter turnout among blacks in inner cities. They will not turn out to vote for Hillary in the same numbers. No matter how many times she fakes a black accent.

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

 

[Billy000]

You'll wait a long time.
Hillary will be the nominee. Failing indictment and conviction of course.
She is the old established candidate with nothing new to offer following 2 terms in the same party.
The GOP will nominate a younger energetic person with new ideas. History shows in every such contest the younger person wins. Every one.
Obama won the second term only because of high voter turnout among blacks in inner cities. They will not turn out to vote for Hillary in the same numbers. No matter how many times she fakes a black accent.

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I trust with this issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

obama had a beer summit, i can only assume that Hillary will be holding "Cankle Summits" as part of the campaign plan in purple states.

Wrong.
At a summit people get together and talk and exchange ideas. That is verboten in Hillaryland. SHe will stage a Potemkin Summit, complete with mannikins sitting attentively at a table while she holds forth on how she has a name and a vagina.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I trust with this issue.

You probably trusted Obama too.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You'll wait a long time.
Hillary will be the nominee. Failing indictment and conviction of course.
She is the old established candidate with nothing new to offer following 2 terms in the same party.
The GOP will nominate a younger energetic person with new ideas. History shows in every such contest the younger person wins. Every one.
Obama won the second term only because of high voter turnout among blacks in inner cities. They will not turn out to vote for Hillary in the same numbers. No matter how many times she fakes a black accent.

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

Lol. The hil loves that donor money. Her goal is 2 billion for this campaign. Did you know that she is one of the little people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where in your moronic brain do you get this thought that republicans ever offer "new ideas". They are younger and energetic sure, but republicans by definition do not have new ideas. It's more of the same you simpleton: Ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy that do next to nothing to boost the economy for the lower classes and pointless deregulations. Oh and they'll repeal ObamaCare and replace it with nothing. God you are such a pawn.

LOL! You've been pwned, once again Billy.
By definition they dont have new ideas. WHose definition? Yours? ThinkProgress'?

Uh, no pawn, they are conservative. Do I need spell out the definition for you? Seriously what is Ted Cruz even running on besides repealing ObamaCare? Nothing. He is a scumbag who has billionaires in his pocket.

LOL! Do you even know what Cruz's platform is?
Scumbag with billionaires in the pocket? That must mean Hillary. She's gotten hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaire scumbags.

So you are in favor of getting rid of citizens united and cutting the money out of politics. Great. Hillary is too, but as long as it is legal, she can't let the repubs be the only ones getting all that dark money. That would be stupid.

Lol. The hil loves that donor money. Her goal is 2 billion for this campaign. Did you know that she is one of the little people.

She and Bill were flat broke when they left the White House. True story!

 

[Jroc]

Lol. Did she break out in her southern dialect delivering this fluff?

Well, if you take the time to actually watch and listen to the speech, then you will be able to determine that for yourself...

No doubt Stat is one of the few who is actually inspired by such an uninspiring, corrupt, women. Who'd bother to waste 45 minutes listening to this fraud

 

[Wildman]

Hours before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former President Bill Clinton told an audience in Australia about his missed chance to kill attack mastermind Osama bin Laden, according to audio released this week.

i posted something similar to this a week ago and the liberslime jumped all over me about he had no LEGAL authority to do so.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Well, that is your opinion, which is of no value to me at all, since you are of absolutely no value to me at all.
Carry on.

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Well, that is your opinion, which is of no value to me at all, since you are of absolutely no value to me at all.
Carry on.

HAHA! You wrote this:

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

And then you demonstrate you are EXACTLY what you complain about in others.
You are a joke, a stinking fool, and a clown on this site. No wonder your avatar is a clown.

 

[Camp]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Interesting that you find it wrong and a negative when a politician goes against the interest of a financial contributor. Somehow the Republican mindset has come to agree with the kleptocrats that large financial contributions should equate to automatic support for the special interest of the donor. To not do so makes the politician bad.

 

[Papageorgio]

What I find interesting about this thread is that it is progressing pretty much as I thought it would.

A LOT of material was presented in the OP and very little of it is actually being debated.

Instead, a great many Righties are frothing at the mouth and are showing a complete lack of ability to focus on anything. Lots of growling, flaming, trolling, and very little attention to actual content.

Oh, and before you frothers accuse me of partisanship, I will remind that I invested a HUGE amount of time on the Rand Paul announcement speech OP:

Rand Paul s platform within his speech 15 points worth debating US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And in case you all have forgotten, Rand Paul is a Republican.

To recapitulate, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told her public at her first public rally that there are four fights that she wants to fight for the American people as the 45th president, should she be elected. She went through a long list of policy proposals. There is plenty of material to sift through, analyse and then criticize, if you want to, and the vast majority of it is quoted in the OP. Calling her names or just saying that she sucks only serves to make Righties look like utter fools. And your behaviour proves what Lefties often say about Conservatives not being able to think, that all they do is to froth at the mouth.

I give Righties the good advice to learn to actually debate like real adults. Really, the slime you spread all over USMB - just because you are perpetually butthurt - has gone from shameful for you to embarrassing for all of us. Truly, truly, truly.

-Stat

Her policy proposals consist of giving out free shit and promising to punish the very people who have enriched her over the years. I.e. she completely lacks credibility.
Only a fake poseur like you could possibly take anything she says seriously. Hell, she admitted to Obama her support for Iraq was based on political polling. But so is every other position she takes. And she will abandon them in a heartbeat if the polls tell her otherwise.

Well, that is your opinion, which is of no value to me at all, since you are of absolutely no value to me at all.
Carry on.

Why would we care about your opinion? What makes you believe we need to be of value to you? You have absolutely no value to many people, what makes you think you are special?