Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: Clinton 2016

  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't involve elements that are under dispute, but rather is an inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.
    Many inquiries has found no evidence compelling enough to shake the impression that Republicans do not suffer from a severe case of hindsight bias where it involves Clinton's behavior.
    Thank you for the irrelevant commentary on my answer to a question. Do you actually disagree with my answer being the correct one for the question that was originally asked?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you actually disagree with my answer being the correct one for the question that was originally asked?
    That would be for Thaltas to respond.

    I am simply stating that the notion you outline is not necessarily a reason to rest responsibility at someones feet. There was no malpractice, on Clinton's part... nothing to spark outrage per say.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    To be clearer there are really three different meaning for "taking responsibility" which, I guess what is meant by "resting at her feet"


    1. By taking responsibility: the burden is so heavy, that it's recognized one does not have the credibility to address the situation and you are fired or there is a resignation
    2. By taking responsibility: there is disagreement over the credibility of the leader going forward and some demand the leader to be removed from his function but that persons stays anyhow
    3. Finally, the leader takes responsibility, and the leader is recognized having the credibility to address the situation and no one asks for the leaders resignation.


    Clinton belongs in third category, since her resignation or firing was not asked by Republicans.

    So while it's true that the buck stops with her and that "Benghazi rests at her feet" it's not something that disqualifies her as a formidable candidate for 2016.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    That would be for Thaltas to respond.

    I am simply stating that the notion you outline is not necessarily a reason to rest responsibility at someones feet. There was no malpractice, on Clinton's part... nothing to spark outrage per say.
    Making decissions that contribute to failure.. is all that is being pionted too.
    To call it "Monday morning QB'ing" is only to say that it is easy to see mistakes hind site.
    It can't be used to say that mistakes were not made or that she didn't perform poorly.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    By taking responsibility: the burden is so heavy, that it's recognized one does not have the credibility to address the situation and you are fired or there is a resignation
    By taking responsibility: there is disagreement over the credibility of the leader going forward and some demand the leader to be removed from his function but that persons stays anyhow
    Finally, the leader takes responsibility, and the leader is recognized having the credibility to address the situation and no one asks for the leaders resignation.
    No taking responsibility is to acknowledge the role one played. What you are talking about is the results of that.

    The debate shouldn't be on if she is responsible or not, but on what should be done about it.


    So the problem is really on us.
    1) Were her actions, that resulted in X, a result of a logical process that anyone in her position would have done?
    -If yes, then we have no grounds to be angry
    2) If not #1, then was her logic flawed in a way so as to make it negligent? Or to say that was her reasoning so bad as to show her incapable, or not as capable as should be expected from that position. (*note* one could be great at managing 10 people, but not be good enough to manage 100)
    3) If #2, then was her decisions so negligent that they are criminal, (IE evil/criminal intent).


    For the record I think she falls into #2, that this event is a reason to say that she is not good enough.
    The problem is that her defenders want to simply ignore her failure. Instead of saying "yea she threw an INT, but she has thrown 4 TD's for every INT she ever threw, and is thus one of the best QB's around" . They say "There is nothing wrong with the INT she threw, you are crazy, racists, bigoted, fear mongers for thinking an INT is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    So while it's true that the buck stops with her and that "Benghazi rests at her feet" it's not something that disqualifies her as a formidable candidate for 2016.
    I disagree with your analysis on several ground because your process is terribly flawed.

    1) Your saying that because she was not fired by the president that she thus automatically doesn't fall in to the most severe conclusions.
    That is terribly flawed, because it suffers from the is/ought fallacy. The fact that she wasn't fired, doesn't mean that she ought not to have been fired.

    2) Your Chriteria for "taking responsibilty" is irrelevant to what "taking responsibility" really means. (see above)
    3) Your argument is circular and posseses no evaluation power on any political situation
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Mindtrap, I'm sorry but I will not respond to the substance of your reply because you are only fighting/arguing the structure of my argument as if it was a philosophical argument when in fact, we are debating a thoroughly investigated event of history.

    Neither the Five House Committees interim report and the additional congressional hearings with three "whistle blower" witnesses, State Department Accountability Review Board, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, and all the investigative done by private outlets were able to find serious fault in Clinton's handling of Benghazi. (Link to resources)

    Now if you think something was done wrong, be specific, and I will address your claims systematically and with proper, detailed support from the body of knowledge produced by investigations you likely cheer-leaded.
    Last edited by Vandaler; October 21st, 2013 at 06:26 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  6. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by van
    Neither the Five House Committees interim report and the additional congressional hearings with three "whistle blower" witnesses, State Department Accountability Review Board, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, and all the investigative done by private outlets were able to find serious fault in Clinton's handling of Benghazi.
    Me thinks you do not understand or have a very meaningless understanding of "serious fault".

    Quote Originally Posted by van link
    Five House Committees
    Five House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. The Republicans on these five House Committees delivered an interim report on April 23, 2013.[251] The interim report was critical of the Obama Administration's actions before, during, and after the attack. Among dozens of findings, the report states that:
    "Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel"
    The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video."
    "... after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya...."
    "The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC [intelligence community] for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated."
    Additional congressional hearings were conducted May 8, 2013 with three "whistleblower" witnesses: Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya.[252]

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN LINK
    The investigation report[95] was released December 20, 2012. It was seen as a sharp criticism of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests for more guards and safety upgrades, and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment. "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,"
    That is the State Department Accountability Review Board



    ... at this point.. reading your source, exactly how do you draw your conclusion that that no serious fault was found? They all seem to be pointing out serious fault.
    What is your idea of "serious fault?" Maybe you mean only in the treasonous sense? Or maybe only criminal negligence?

    Bottom line, your link doesn't support your position.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Bottom line, your link doesn't support your position.
    You stop short and only scratch the surface when you find something you like. This is not how this game is played.

    Let's look at the first specimen you provided.

    The interim report signed by only Republican's released April 23d state indeed that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Executive Summary
    Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
    The basis for this finding was:

    Quote Originally Posted by page 7
    State Department officials in Washington acknowledged that the Benghazi Mission lacked sufficient resources to protect its personnel in a deteriorating security environment. However, in a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012, the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi.
    However, this bull was very quickly ridiculed within a few days:

    Quote Originally Posted by Washington Post factcheck
    Cable is a bit of an old-fashioned word, but then the State Department — the nation’s first Cabinet department — is a tradition-bound organization. These days, State Department cables in effect are group e-mails, which are stored in a database and made available to people with the proper security clearances.
    As part of that tradition, every cable from an embassy bears the “signature” of the ambassador — and every cable from Washington bears the “signature” of the secretary of state. The protocol is explained in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual:
    ...
    Because of this protocol, “Secretary Clinton ‘signed’ hundreds of thousands of cables during her tenure as secretary,” said State Department spokesman Patrick H. Ventrell. “As then-Secretary Clinton testified, the security cables related to Benghazi did not come to her attention. These cables were reviewed at the assistant secretary level.”
    (Link)
    Pretty embarrassing uh? So no, this Republican Interim report does not provide evidence of Clinton's knowledge of reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi... rather, it provides a window into hastily put together "proof" by paper tigers with no knowledge of how the State Department works.

    ---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

    Your second point....

    "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,"
    The failure, according to the report occurred within two bureaus of the State Department... it never mentions any fault with Clinton.

    (Report)
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    You stop short of only scratching the surface when you find something you like. This is not how this game is played.

    Let's look at the first specimen you provided.

    The interim report signed by only Republican's released April 23d state indeed that:
    I'm calling bull crap.

    1) your rebuttal refers to a different link than the one you originally showed me.
    2) It was YOUR link which I read and quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Pretty embarrassing uh? So no, this Republican Interim report does not provide evidence of Clinton's knowledge of reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi... rather, it provides a window into hastily put together "proof" by paper tigers with no knowledge of how the State Department works.
    What is embarrassing is your moving of the goal posts.

    You originally stated. "Neither the Five House Committees interim report ...were able to find serious fault in Clinton's handling of "
    Which your link did not support and instead showed that the 5 house report found fault.

    Then you change it to the claim that they don't provide evidence.

    The difference is your first claim is about what the report says, your second claim is in regards to the credibility of the report or it's worth as evidence.



    ---
    To review.

    1) Your original claim was false and evidence by the link you provided.
    2) Your assertion that I have stopped short when I "scratched the surface" and found something I like.
    Is completely false, because I was only fact checking your claim in relation to your link. Your claim was false and attacking me doesn't help your case and is a fallacy.


    You should concede both of those points if you want to move the debate in another direction.
    I mean, after all, if you can't concede that a supporting link doesn't support your position, then there is no reason to discuss this further with you.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    I provided links to the whole investigative body with the knowledge that some of it might be contradictory and requiring some perspective. My claim was:

    Quote Originally Posted by ME
    I will address your claims systematically and with proper, detailed support from the body of knowledge produced by investigations (plural)
    It was a challenge to myself really... to bring down any claims you might have that implicates negatively Clinton.
    It's a challenge I will uphold.

    It was not a challenge for you to find some negative within the entire thing. It's how ALL this documentation stack up against each other that matters if you are interested into getting ahead closer to the truth.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  10. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    I provided links to the whole investigative body with the knowledge that some of it might be contradictory and requiring some perspective
    So are you still claiming that the 5 house report didn't find fault with Clinton?

    Or are you conceding that point and now arguing that fault found was not important or significant?

    ---
    The truth seems pretty clear. Hillary is responsible for the reduction of forces at a time when increase was requested and where the reality bore out that reduction was a bad idea. (given the tragic events).

    If we agree on that, then we can move on. If one of the reports contradict that, I'm glad to have you point it out to me.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So are you still claiming that the 5 house report didn't find fault with Clinton?
    Or are you conceding that point and now arguing that fault found was not important or significant?

    ---
    The truth seems pretty clear. Hillary is responsible for the reduction of forces at a time when increase was requested and where the reality bore out that reduction was a bad idea. (given the tragic events).

    If we agree on that, then we can move on. If one of the reports contradict that, I'm glad to have you point it out to me.
    I clearly outlined that the report of 5 does find fault against Clinton. This is not a concession, it's something that I detailed explicitly myself by providing both links to the report and the exact page where the report provides it's support.

    However, I also outlined why the support from report of 5 is flat out wrong and in an embarrassing way.

    Thus your conclusion that Hillary is responsible for the reduction of forces at a time when increase was requested cannot be based on that report. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    If one of the reports contradict that, I'm glad to have you point it out to me.
    It's not that a report contradicts that... it's that the basis for the finding in the report of 5 does not pass an elementary fact check.

    ---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------

    What I do concede, is that I ignored (prior to issuing the challenge) that the Republican report pointed to fault directly against Clinton... but that report carries no weight in light of professional fact checking.

    So what other "proof" is there that Hillary was aware and demanded the removal of security?
    And if you persist in the accuracy of the Republican report... what counter factual do you have to provide against the evidence I provided against it?
    Last edited by Vandaler; October 21st, 2013 at 11:23 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  12. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    I clearly outlined that the report of 5 does find fault against Clinton. This is not a concession, it's something that I detailed explicitly myself by providing both links to the report and the exact page where the report provides it's support.

    However, I also outlined why the support from report of 5 is flat out wrong and in an embarrassing way.
    That is not what you said here
    Quote Originally Posted by VAN POST 25
    Neither the Five House Committees interim report and the additional congressional hearings with three "whistle blower" witnesses, State Department Accountability Review Board, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, and all the investigative done by private outlets were able to find serious fault in Clinton's handling of Benghazi. (Link to resources)
    Here you said that the 5 house committees(among others) don't find fault, that is what I was responding too. Because you were wrong.

    Did I misunderstand the above quote? did you say one thing and mean another? I can only respond to what you post. You seem to be changing the meaning of what you were trying to convey... Should I just disregard post 25?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Should I just disregard post 25?
    Post #25 is an open invitation to anyone to try and implicate directly, Hillary Clinton as being aware and responsible for the pullout of security, or any other signs of incompetence that could be an impediment for her to be a good candidate. My contention is that the body of investigative work on Benghazi is not to her disadvantage.

    That being said:

    Here you said that the 5 house committees(among others) don't find fault, that is what I was responding too. Because you were wrong.
    Conceeded, I was wrong... but that is of no consequence for the reasons I already outlined in post 31.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  14. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Conceeded, I was wrong... but that is of no consequence for the reasons I already outlined in post 31.
    Thanks. I agree that what you are forwarding below is different approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Post #25 is an open invitation to anyone to try and implicate directly, Hillary Clinton as being aware and responsible for the pullout of security, or any other signs of incompetence that could be an impediment for her to be a good candidate. My contention is that the body of investigative work on Benghazi is not to her disadvantage.
    I would argue that "aware" is not necessary in order for it to reflect poorly on her. I mean if it was a bunch of interns in here that made the decision... well, that is what being in charge is about.. taking responsibility for the people you put in place. I think earlier you said she signed a bunch of documents.. well, that is hardly any excuse, in fact that is the nature of the job and why not everyone can do it well. she is however responsible for every single piece of paper she signed. yes?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would argue that "aware" is not necessary in order for it to reflect poorly on her.
    It reflects poorly on all the State Departement and she was the head of it so it reflects poorly on her as well. Yes.

    I think earlier you said she signed a bunch of documents.. well, that is hardly any excuse, in fact that is the nature of the job and why not everyone can do it well. she is however responsible for every single piece of paper she signed. yes?
    It would help the flow of debate if you actually read carefully my posts.
    It goes like this:
    • Republicans claim she pulled security
    • Their support is that there is a signed order bearing her signature (Hillary)
    • Factcheck reveals that protocol demands that all cable coming from Washington bear the signature of the Secretary of State (like a rubber stamp)


    So while she is ultimately responsible for everything, it does not mean, like Republican's claim, that she personally authorized or even was aware of the order to pull security.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  16. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    It reflects poorly on all the State Departement and she was the head of it so it reflects poorly on her as well. Yes.
    O.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    It would help the flow of debate if you actually read carefully my posts.
    The only reason you have to go over this again (IE flow) is because I wasn't going to move past the point you eventually conceded until you did so.
    I don't have a good enough attention span to trudge through pages of irrelevancies to my point while you get ahead of the conversation.
    So I apologize that the flow was disrupted, but please don't try to put all the blame on me for ignoring your statements that are irrelevant to a given point of contention.
    ... we are here now, enjoy the moment

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    So while she is ultimately responsible for everything, it does not mean, like Republican's claim, that she personally authorized or even was aware of the order to pull security.
    I don't see a relevant distinction between the two. In both cases she is responsible. and she can't be held more responsible than she is responsible for.
    So what if she made the decision, or if the decision was done in her name and in her authority (they are "rubber stamped" with her name for a reason).

    IMO the very attempt to minimize her responsibility is a reason that she should not receive a higher office.
    Any answer that doesn't include the verbiage "My office" or "My decision" or otherwise excludes Hillary from a process which is done in her name and on her authority, is negligence.
    Referring to "intern level" or "associate level" or what have you is a distinction without a difference in regards to the roll of authority.


    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    It goes like this:

    Republicans claim she pulled security
    Their support is that there is a signed order bearing her signature (Hillary)
    Factcheck reveals that protocol demands that all cable coming from Washington bear the signature of the Secretary of State (like a rubber stamp)
    I agree that it was or mostly likely was a "rubber stamp" type signature. Very solid argument there for that point, republicans got 4 pinocious.. so bad on them.

    I don't argue that she "was" aware, I would argue that her ignorance is not an excuse, but rather a further sign of failure on her part.
    If she can't manage to put the right state department talent under her to accurately determine threats and asset management.. how is she to pick a general as president? Did the screw uper under her get fired/demoted?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I don't argue that she "was" aware, I would argue that her ignorance is not an excuse,
    After you are well aware of the detailed facts... you're entitled to your opinion on the level of responsibility she bears... but I don't think this is very persuasive. Furthermore, I would even argue that even if your opinion is legitimate, I think that Benghazi has become cryptonite in Republican's neck and it makes them sound desperate to go over this again in 2016. (that is an opinion as well and you don't need to respond to it).
    Last edited by Vandaler; October 22nd, 2013 at 04:05 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  18. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    My prediction of Hillary is that she will win, because I don't believe the republicans will put up a true conservative .. yet again.
    With another McCain/Romney type to choose from many more conservatives will simply check out of the political race, choosing instead to concentrate on their personal lives.

    If that becomes the case, the only battle left that will get them re-engaged is going to be the Catholic churches fight over religious freedom of expression, specifically in regards to abortion at their hospitals and provision of birth control. If the Catholic church takes a stand and out right closes their hospitals down(which represent a significant % of all hospitals, somewhere in the realm of 25%), then the conservatives will re-enter the political arena.

    All this because the only thing that is left that will ignite them (IMO) is a clear issue of const nature and rights. It may be that Healthcare is that issue, but it will take years of failure before it is re-pitched to the people as a single payers system, and I don't think we will see a reversal by that point.

    -----Re-Cap.
    Hillary will win by default as Conservatives withdraw from the arena.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Hillary will win by default as Conservatives withdraw from the arena.
    I think Ted Cruz will probably run, and be demonized by the liberal media, democrats, and liberal Republicans. He probably won't win the nomination, but I expect he'll stay in until the convention. Or until offered the VP job to get conservatives to show up at the polls.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clinton 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    I think Ted Cruz will probably run, and be demonized by the liberal media, democrats, and liberal Republicans. He probably won't win the nomination, but I expect he'll stay in until the convention. Or until offered the VP job to get conservatives to show up at the polls.
    Probably, or he wins the nomination and then moves to the left for the actual election.
    To be translated by conservatives as .. " I am not running on principles".

    and if he is picked as a VP, then it will send the message.. "we are patronizing your position for your votes"
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  21. Likes Sigfried liked this post
 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. 2016: Obama's America.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 8th, 2012, 09:30 PM
  2. Only Clinton could go to North Korea
    By Dionysus in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: August 6th, 2009, 12:25 PM
  3. Obama vs Clinton: Who's smarter?
    By Trendem in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 27th, 2008, 04:48 PM
  4. Clinton wants MI and FL delegates to count
    By daman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 05:10 PM
  5. Clinton for UN Secretary?
    By Snoop in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 1st, 2005, 08:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •