“Make the Gospel Great Again”

Jul 2013
37,007
23,436
On a happy trail
#41
And,this, my Son is why the Evangelical movement is falling apart. Nothing can remove the Trump stain!
They will still double down because Evangelical Christianity requires total belief and ignoring the reality, and these people have certainly learned to believe that even their tiniest mental figments are real and true, and a sign from God.
 
Likes: Arkady
Jul 2014
33,852
8,752
midwest
#43
Hard to call some one a loser with nearly 3 million more votes than the "winner".
She did not win the election, therefore she lost.

There's always a winner and a loser.

She's the loser.

Not just a loser, she's a two time loser.

I know she wants to go for three.

You think she will?

I think they will keep her from running again, but you can never underestimate the Clintons thirst for power.

So, we'll see...
 

BDBoop

Former Staff
Dec 2010
46,308
42,849
Twitter
#44
Well...it's blasphemy. I haven't seen anyone go THAT far...yet. Also, no one is taking responsibility. Satire is traditionally unsigned.
Shit, if I did something that damn stupid and I didn’t have to admit it? Anonymous it is!
 
Jun 2013
17,068
14,561
Here
#45
We had Hillary Clinton. She had her flaws, of course -- as is true for every candidate in history. In her case, the big one is that she was irresponsible enough to vote to give Bush authority to decide whether force was required in Iraq. That was a huge mistake. But, overall, she was a strong candidate. For starters, she was squeaky clean. In all of history, probably no other person has ever been investigated as thoroughly as her, and yet in all that time never once did any meaningful misconduct emerge. She was also very bright, hard working, well-prepared, and unusually honest for a politician. And she had solid, practical, center-left positions across a wide range of policy areas. Moreover, she had a very broad base of experience from which to draw.

But, of course, she was a Democrat, so the shambling idiots on the right were convinced she was the antichrist, just as they'd been convinced with every other Democratic nominee of the modern era, as well as with anyone else who held the Democratic standard, however briefly (Pelosi, etc.) They'll be equally convinced that the next standard-bearer is the antichrist, too, no matter who that is.
I also believe Clinton's "vote for Bush" is misconstrued with regard to simplifying it as you just have. While one might still believe it was a mistake, she did not merely hand over the keys without qualification and discussion of her mind process for making her decision. I think even some progressives and Democrats came to believe her decision was as simple as merely handing over the keys and that they, from positions of NOT being in the same position and considering all she did consider, decided she was wrong.
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Believe me, there are a number of things that have rubbed me the wrong way about Hillary Clinton and I don't believe anyone is flawless, but of all the candidates running in 2016, she was the most qualified by far and perhaps also, the most targeted, with misinformation, half truths and negativity about her. She, as well as any other woman candidate, was looking at a ratio of how many male candidates to women candidates in a world where women make up just over half of the population (why are their not more female candidates?) With such a ratio, the women candidates and women in general in government and other places (think that it was not until 1920 that women could even have a right to choose a candidate to represent them), seem to be forced to try to compete as the males compete against one another, using make metaphors for "toughness" and things like "machismo" in the background. This makes women candidates look out of place because it forces them to act like males in order to compete, yet they bring and should express that which is uniquely female to their campaigns. In the minds of some men, that becomes and expression of "weakness" and it makes it harder for women candidates to overcome the stigma, placed on them.

It is funny though that for all the criticism of Clinton, by her opponents to make her appear to be "weak" or a "weak" candidate, the amount of focus that was and still is place on her, by her political opponents, only seems to show, somewhat ironically, just how powerful she or her aura really is and I don't think it is merely because her opponents think of her only as a dead horse to keep whipping, but because they feel she still has power to influence, even though she or her husband hold no political office and certainly could never be construed to hold the power that the office of the POTUS holds, if only to exploit as (as is done currently) a bully pulpit to extol his own personal virtues and float lies and misinformation about his opponents.

In the weighing of flaws, vs. virtues, it seems very difficult for anyone who truly and sincerely tries to apply honesty to suggest Clinton was "worse" by her flaws, than Trump. In this day and age, logic, facts, figures, corroboration, past credibility, etc. are no match for those who simply lie and deny without conscience. But if there were some manner of divine irrefutable panel of judgement, that no person questioned, that weighed all the evidence, the question is, truly and honestly, who would weigh heavier where, when it came to sins and virtues? I cannot say, without indicting myself, with regard to personal bias.

Will we or some future generation ever know, the truths of this era in time, when lying and the spreading of misinformation seems to be the norm, not the exception? Will more people be compelled to become more informed and intelligent with an interest in the truth or will they continue to be or increase what appears to be tribalism which requires less intellect and more simple minded partisanship? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Likes: BDBoop
Apr 2012
57,332
42,148
Englewood,Ohio
#46
They will still double down because Evangelical Christianity requires total belief and ignoring the reality, and these people have certainly learned to believe that even their tiniest mental figments are real and true, and a sign from God.
Does not matter, Panzareta, the numbers are getting smaller all the time. Old ones are dying off and the young are rejecting them. They are not able to recruit.
 
Apr 2012
57,332
42,148
Englewood,Ohio
#47
I also believe Clinton's "vote for Bush" is misconstrued with regard to simplifying it as you just have. While one might still believe it was a mistake, she did not merely hand over the keys without qualification and discussion of her mind process for making her decision. I think even some progressives and Democrats came to believe her decision was as simple as merely handing over the keys and that they, from positions of NOT being in the same position and considering all she did consider, decided she was wrong.
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Believe me, there are a number of things that have rubbed me the wrong way about Hillary Clinton and I don't believe anyone is flawless, but of all the candidates running in 2016, she was the most qualified by far and perhaps also, the most targeted, with misinformation, half truths and negativity about her. She, as well as any other woman candidate, was looking at a ratio of how many male candidates to women candidates in a world where women make up just over half of the population (why are their not more female candidates?) With such a ratio, the women candidates and women in general in government and other places (think that it was not until 1920 that women could even have a right to choose a candidate to represent them), seem to be forced to try to compete as the males compete against one another, using make metaphors for "toughness" and things like "machismo" in the background. This makes women candidates look out of place because it forces them to act like males in order to compete, yet they bring and should express that which is uniquely female to their campaigns. In the minds of some men, that becomes and expression of "weakness" and it makes it harder for women candidates to overcome the stigma, placed on them.

It is funny though that for all the criticism of Clinton, by her opponents to make her appear to be "weak" or a "weak" candidate, the amount of focus that was and still is place on her, by her political opponents, only seems to show, somewhat ironically, just how powerful she or her aura really is and I don't think it is merely because her opponents think of her only as a dead horse to keep whipping, but because they feel she still has power to influence, even though she or her husband hold no political office and certainly could never be construed to hold the power that the office of the POTUS holds, if only to exploit as (as is done currently) a bully pulpit to extol his own personal virtues and float lies and misinformation about his opponents.

In the weighing of flaws, vs. virtues, it seems very difficult for anyone who truly and sincerely tries to apply honesty to suggest Clinton was "worse" by her flaws, than Trump. In this day and age, logic, facts, figures, corroboration, past credibility, etc. are no match for those who simply lie and deny without conscience. But if there were some manner of divine irrefutable panel of judgement, that no person questioned, that weighed all the evidence, the question is, truly and honestly, who would weigh heavier where, when it came to sins and virtues? I cannot say, without indicting myself, with regard to personal bias.

Will we or some future generation ever know, the truths of this era in time, when lying and the spreading of misinformation seems to be the norm, not the exception? Will more people be compelled to become more informed and intelligent with an interest in the truth or will they continue to be or increase what appears to be tribalism which requires less intellect and more simple minded partisanship? I don't know.
I listened to Hillary when she voted.

 
Sep 2017
4,884
5,805
Massachusetts
#48
I also believe Clinton's "vote for Bush" is misconstrued with regard to simplifying it as you just have. While one might still believe it was a mistake, she did not merely hand over the keys without qualification and discussion of her mind process for making her decision. I think even some progressives and Democrats came to believe her decision was as simple as merely handing over the keys and that they, from positions of NOT being in the same position and considering all she did consider, decided she was wrong.
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Believe me, there are a number of things that have rubbed me the wrong way about Hillary Clinton and I don't believe anyone is flawless, but of all the candidates running in 2016, she was the most qualified by far and perhaps also, the most targeted, with misinformation, half truths and negativity about her. She, as well as any other woman candidate, was looking at a ratio of how many male candidates to women candidates in a world where women make up just over half of the population (why are their not more female candidates?) With such a ratio, the women candidates and women in general in government and other places (think that it was not until 1920 that women could even have a right to choose a candidate to represent them), seem to be forced to try to compete as the males compete against one another, using make metaphors for "toughness" and things like "machismo" in the background. This makes women candidates look out of place because it forces them to act like males in order to compete, yet they bring and should express that which is uniquely female to their campaigns. In the minds of some men, that becomes and expression of "weakness" and it makes it harder for women candidates to overcome the stigma, placed on them.

It is funny though that for all the criticism of Clinton, by her opponents to make her appear to be "weak" or a "weak" candidate, the amount of focus that was and still is place on her, by her political opponents, only seems to show, somewhat ironically, just how powerful she or her aura really is and I don't think it is merely because her opponents think of her only as a dead horse to keep whipping, but because they feel she still has power to influence, even though she or her husband hold no political office and certainly could never be construed to hold the power that the office of the POTUS holds, if only to exploit as (as is done currently) a bully pulpit to extol his own personal virtues and float lies and misinformation about his opponents.

In the weighing of flaws, vs. virtues, it seems very difficult for anyone who truly and sincerely tries to apply honesty to suggest Clinton was "worse" by her flaws, than Trump. In this day and age, logic, facts, figures, corroboration, past credibility, etc. are no match for those who simply lie and deny without conscience. But if there were some manner of divine irrefutable panel of judgement, that no person questioned, that weighed all the evidence, the question is, truly and honestly, who would weigh heavier where, when it came to sins and virtues? I cannot say, without indicting myself, with regard to personal bias.

Will we or some future generation ever know, the truths of this era in time, when lying and the spreading of misinformation seems to be the norm, not the exception? Will more people be compelled to become more informed and intelligent with an interest in the truth or will they continue to be or increase what appears to be tribalism which requires less intellect and more simple minded partisanship? I don't know.
I've heard the defenses of Clinton's Iraq vote, on that front, but I don't find them convincing. She knew perfectly well that a vote for the Iraq resolution, regardless of how many non-binding caveats and wiggle words were thrown in, would effectively give Bush a legal green light to launch the war she knew the Republicans had been planning for many months, or, really, years. She took what she (wrongly) thought was the safe political course, by signing up for what was going to be a foregone conclusion either way. I think she should have done the brave political thing and voted against the resolution, even if it wouldn't have mattered. The issue was too important to play cynical games with it.

The defense of Clinton is basically that she was just handing Bush the bargaining power that came from being understood to be the final decision-maker, but with an agreement he wouldn't abuse that power. In other words, she trusted Bush, and he betrayed her. That may be true, but it's not a good defense. By 2002, anyone paying attention knew Bush wasn't trust-worthy -- that he was essentially run by a pack of warmongers, led by Cheney, who were dead set on conquering Iraq even if weapons inspectors went back in and confirmed the WMDs were gone. I can't be 100% certain Clinton knew that, but either she did, and so her defense is disingenuous, or she didn't, and she was a remarkably horrible judge of character on a key issue. Either way, it is a huge knock against her.

That said, I agree with regard to the criticisms of her candidacy -- especially criticisms from the left. Nobody worked harder than she did to stop Trump, and for that she has my eternal gratitude. Of course, some moves she made will look bad in retrospect, but you don't get to make those decisions in retrospect, and she did as well as can be expected in real-time, when facing the combined forces of Russia, Comey's FBI, the billionaire-backed Republican ticket, and mainstream media that's been out to get her from day one.
 
Jun 2013
17,068
14,561
Here
#49
I've heard the defenses of Clinton's Iraq vote, on that front, but I don't find them convincing. She knew perfectly well that a vote for the Iraq resolution, regardless of how many non-binding caveats and wiggle words were thrown in, would effectively give Bush a legal green light to launch the war she knew the Republicans had been planning for many months, or, really, years. She took what she (wrongly) thought was the safe political course, by signing up for what was going to be a foregone conclusion either way. I think she should have done the brave political thing and voted against the resolution, even if it wouldn't have mattered. The issue was too important to play cynical games with it.

The defense of Clinton is basically that she was just handing Bush the bargaining power that came from being understood to be the final decision-maker, but with an agreement he wouldn't abuse that power. In other words, she trusted Bush, and he betrayed her. That may be true, but it's not a good defense. By 2002, anyone paying attention knew Bush wasn't trust-worthy -- that he was essentially run by a pack of warmongers, led by Cheney, who were dead set on conquering Iraq even if weapons inspectors went back in and confirmed the WMDs were gone. I can't be 100% certain Clinton knew that, but either she did, and so her defense is disingenuous, or she didn't, and she was a remarkably horrible judge of character on a key issue. Either way, it is a huge knock against her.

That said, I agree with regard to the criticisms of her candidacy -- especially criticisms from the left. Nobody worked harder than she did to stop Trump, and for that she has my eternal gratitude. Of course, some moves she made will look bad in retrospect, but you don't get to make those decisions in retrospect, and she did as well as can be expected in real-time, when facing the combined forces of Russia, Comey's FBI, the billionaire-backed Republican ticket, and mainstream media that's been out to get her from day one.
All I can say it that is easy for us that did not have to make that decision, to criticize it those that did. I don't believe one can deny the acts of Saddam Hussein and with regard to many of those who heard her speech and reasons for her vote, believed as you do. They saw that the choice, based on her speech, that her decision was not as some want to present it as, simply giving G.W. Bush a green light, without caveats and questions regarding doing so. While I know you point to that one thing as a reason to criticize her (is that the brave political thing, since it seems popular among some to bash her for doing so?) Some people would consider her taking the time to qualify her decision with great caution and to do so multi-laterally, NOT uni-laterally as Bush ended up doing, doing something brave as has been demonstrated by criticism of her for her decision, by people of her own party.

One might ask which is more "brave" if being "brave", not articulated thought and weighing the issues and evidence, is considered the qualifier. Is it brave to go up against an opposition or would that be something that would be expected? Is it brave to go against the tide of one's political party's popular opinion/stance and present an articulation of logical reasons for doing so? To me, but not to you, she qualified her decision and it was a well done qualification, even if I disagreed with what George Bush (not Clinton, unless one wants to believe her decision was the equivalent of an unexplained, unqualified proxy to make the same same decision Bush ended up making and forgetting all the reasons the question of granting any president that power, temporarily or otherwise to make the call. I did not see it as simply a proxy for how Clinton would have ultimately decided and her qualification of her decision suggested were she in Bush's shoes and handed the power to make such a decision, if anything, it would not have been done in the same way Bush did it and likely may never have been done with more deferral to a multi-lateral, rather than a uni-lateral approach. I cannot simply dismiss the idea that there were equally logical reasons to regret not going into Iraq.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, at the time, I made arguments for NOT going into Iraq based on many of the reasons HRC gave for reasons why it was not a good idea or why, if we were to go into Iraq, the conditions with which we should and evidence and logic for those reasons. I did not agree with the decision to go in, under the circumstances we did and for the very reasons Clinton argued would not be good reasons to go in. Clinton did not support the route by which Bush chose to go into Iraq. I saw her articulation and thought process for her decision as something other than a carte blanche for Bush to do as he pleased, however he pleased.

My contention is not that going into Iraq was right, under the circumstances, but that either the right or the left, characterizing Clinton's decision to go with authorizing the President to make the decision, with caveats for what the president needs to consider to make the decision as a simply and unqualified proxy vote for what Bush did, seems unfair and lacks the balance and the thought, she put into qualifying her decision as something other than a simply proxy vote to agree down the line with whatever Bush decided.

The "brave" thing in my mind is what Clinton did do and in the way she did it. Instead doing the "safe" thing, which would have been popular in the sense of simple partisan opposition, she did what, by your own contention, harmed her, politically with her own party. But with further examination, it was not as many on both the right and the left perpetuate in their characterization of it. Because of her articulated weighing of her decision and caveats for how any decision to go into Iraq should have further been carried out, it appears to me and to quite a few others, she was not merely signing off in proxy to whatever Bush wanted or decided and it seems unfair to perpetuate a characterization of her decision, in such a way.

To each our own thoughts and opinions and the "safe" thing for me, would have been to merely side and nod my head in agreement, that yes, her decision about handing authority to Bush was merely handing him the keys to drive the car however he wanted, no questions, no caveats, no qualifications required for being handed the keys.

If one reads the actual resolution on handing Bush the authority, there are caveats and conditions that align with Clinton's qualifications for authorizing Bush, but she is only one and as one, had no authority to dictate the terms of the authorization only attempt to add caveats and conditions to it. In the world of politics where one is criticized no matter what they do, it seems wise for any politician to articulate and qualify their positions and decisions with sincere and honest (as opposed to politically partisan fluff and rhetoric) as doing so will provide a historical record of what they actually did, as opposed to how some might characterize what they did, leaving out the details that would change the character of their own characterization.

Does that make sense?

One more thing that is interesting to me is how people bash the MSM even as they use it as their source of information. It is interesting to me how the MSM can simultaneously be providing people with their information and be "out to get", two opposing candidates at the same time. Trump and Trumpians seem to believe the MSM is out "to get" Donald Trump.......some on the left seem to think the MSM was out "to get" Hillary Clinton..........And where do people get these ideas and their information?

Trump uses the MSM to BASH the MSM and call it "fake", yet at the same time, hoping someone believes what he calls a "fake" video of him, calling a video of him "fake", because it is shown on the MSM....

is the MSM real or fake, and if it is fake, why do people who are told the MSM is fake believe it is fake because of a report about it being fake presented by the MSM, the "media" that is supposed to not be truthful? Why would the MSM report about their being "fake news" and expect people to believe their report? Why would the MSM be fake when they are merely showing video of someone calling them fake? Why would Trump believe someone believes his message, about the MSM being fake news, when it is reported by the fake MSM?

Can you say "flim flam"? How about "shell game"? Are Americans following the "pea"?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2013
41,610
33,055
On a hill
#50
She did not win the election, therefore she lost.

There's always a winner and a loser.

She's the loser.

Not just a loser, she's a two time loser.

I know she wants to go for three.

You think she will?

I think they will keep her from running again, but you can never underestimate the Clintons thirst for power.

So, we'll see...
I didnt want her to run not because i thought shed be a bad president, but because i have never underestimated the rightwinger lust for clinton blood. After more than a quarter of a century of trying to destroy the clintons, i have no doubt they would have done everything possible to destroy her presidency, and the country be damned.