jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (40 posts)

Why are the Republicans afraid of Hilary Clinton?

  1. skperdon profile image87
    skperdonposted 13 months ago

    Let's face it "Hilary for President" gets the Republican base buzzing like no other. We all know that the Benghazi Committee's specific purpose is to go after her and rip her competency to shreds.
    Then there is the big, bogus email fraud sting.

    I can see that she is a strong person and a strong Presidential candidate.
    Do they see her as an extension of Bill?
    Why? Why the persecution?
    Help me to understand the political witch hunt please!!!

    1. Austinstar profile image81
      Austinstarposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      I too cannot understand the depth of hatred coming from the Republicans regarding Hillary and Obama. It really goes above and beyond normal political mud slinging. It is for this very reason that I will no longer vote for a Republican. They are mean-spirited, back-stabbing hypocrites, and I do not see how they could possibly make any improvements to our system of government by being the obstructionist bigots that they are.

      1. skperdon profile image87
        skperdonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        That is true, their true colors did come since Obama took office. I was shocked at first, I always thought that politicians had some sort of finesse.I thought that they had to to get where they are.
        Sad to say I was so wrong.
        They don't really care they treat the American masses as pawns to just believe whatever they are told and to just listen to them.
        What I'm also surprised about is how many readily believes the lies, twisted truths and half truths. without bothering to verify what they are being told.
        Politicians all do the same things, but everyone looks at the one who the finger is pointing towards.

        Thank you for your comment Austinstar.

      2. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 13 months ago in reply to this

        Let me shake your hand!

      3. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        This is the new face of politics and it is stirred up by the politicians to divide us and gather support for their own reward. Politics has always been a dirty business and the things that are said to demean and marginalize others is counter productive and juvenile at best. I don't like Hillary as a Commander in Chief but not because of who she is as a person. I don't believe she can keep the controversies at bay and still run the country. I also believe she is heavily vested in Wall Street and cannot act in good conscience for the countries benefit over her loyalty to the money that supports her election.

        1. Austinstar profile image81
          Austinstarposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          While Hilary may not be the perfect person to run the country (I'm rooting for Bernie Sanders), I really don't think it's fair for the way the Republicans have treated her and Obama. I think they have made up lies and half truths and repeated them ad nausea-tum until EVERYONE is sick of that.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Hillary is the mainstream selection for President. She tells everyone what they want to hear, gathers support from the same donors and when elected does the same as her predecessor. I don't care about her controversies stemming back to Whitewater, Vince Foster or Benghazi. What I do care about and everyone seems to ignore is who is controlling her. Wall Street who she says she wants to reign in is one of her biggest supporters. But Wall Street also supports Bush. [1].

            This, my friend is all about the money. [2] Money runs the climate, the economies and the politics of just about everything that goes on in our elections. More quickly reported than the polls the war chest of these candidates is the focus of the donors, the press and the media who will make an incredible amount of it as we go through the drill. They don't care who wins or who loses. They all get paid.

            [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/ … 0V20151016
            [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/ … FU20151016

            1. skperdon profile image87
              skperdonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              rhamson, isn't it the tactic of all politicians to tell people what they want to hear in order to their gather support?
              I'm inclined to say that greed runs it all. Politics is a "blood" sport and we are the spectators. We cheer for our champions in the field and think that we have the reins, but it is they who have the reins, the ones who have made greed their best friend.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                The peculiar part of the whole paradigm is that we are in charge of the whole shebang. We control the vote, the rules and the people. We just choose not to exercise it. Instead of just doing what the politicians tell us to do and running the conversation we have the ability to change it all. Another unfortunate part is that we get tangled up in each others business (gay rights, abortion and the like while they carry out their dirt in our distraction. We need to set term limits, publicly fund the elections and restrict lobbying. If we take the money out of the process governing becomes relevant to all the people again.

            2. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              +1  I like how you are on the money in your comments. 

              Anyway,
              I listened to this video "How Congress cashes in on the stock market" a few days ago.  It is worth 4 minutes of a person's time to understand corruption in politics at the Wall Street level.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oY76a8B34w

              I do believe that the majority of career politicians are driven by greed and that Hillary Clinton fits that profile along with many others. She got her foot in the door in the early 1970's as a Congressional legal counsel and is a career politician. 

              Anyone as president other than Hillary.
              There are too many scandals in her track record. 
              The Clinton "body count" list keeps growing...

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Term limits, publicly funded campaigns and lobby reform is the answer to all of these career parasites.

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  RE:  The Hillary Clinton email scandal 

                  U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

                  Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

                  She is in fact guilty of lawlessness and should be fined twice or given two imprisonment sentences of up to three years or both twice. 

                  Obama is up to his eyeballs in this but they both seem to think they are above the law.  They have to be stopped. 

                  http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill- … ry-clinton

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                    Quilligrapherposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Good evening, Colorfulone. It has been much too long since our last conversation.

                    Thank you for quoting these two paragraphs from the law. It is refreshing to see someone supplying factual details for a change rather than relying on their emotional rhetoric.

                    I see that in both paragraphs a: and b: the operative adverbs are “willfully and unlawfully.” This is really interesting because it means this statute is not violated if the specified actions are found to be  “willful” OR “unlawful.” To be found guilty under this law, a jury must find that the accused acted both “willfully and unlawfully”, not just one without the other.

                    More  importantly, to be found guilty of violating these laws, one must first be indicted and tried before a jury. After a fair amount of research, I am unable to find any legal proceedings in which Secretary Clinton was indicted or found by a jury to be guilty under this law, or any other law. However, since you said "she is in fact guilty," you must be aware of a trial, a conviction, and a sentencing that the rest of us have missed. Please post a link to this legal action. If you have no knowledge of such a trial, then the following statement is libel, i.e. a lie that is both willful and unlawful: "She is in fact guilty of lawlessness and should be fined twice or given two imprisonment sentences of up to three years or both twice."

                    You see, in this country neither you nor Mr. Whittle gets to declare who is guilty and who is innocent UNLESS you are sworn members of the jury specifically appointed to make that determination. Mr. Bill Whittle is the supreme marsupial acting as judge and jury in his own self-appointed kangaroo court. As an American, it should bother you that he presumes to make a legal judgment that is beyond his qualifications and expertise. He has determined other fellow Americans are “criminals” without the benefit of hearing evidence, cross-examination, or the conclusion of a jury.

                    Perhaps you should tell us once again how much you cherish the Constitution and the rule of law. I am beginning to have my doubts. 

                    Nice to have this chance to exchange viewpoints, Colorfulone. Your perspectives are always novel and revealing.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          2. skperdon profile image87
            skperdonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            I agree Austinstar. Bernie Sanders does seems like the likely candidate to vote for at this point.
            Obama and Hilary does have very strong characters it's possibly the reason for the viscous attacks on their characters.

        2. skperdon profile image87
          skperdonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Thank you for your comment rhamson.
          You know, I'm trying my best to pick a politician who isn't vested in Wall Street. Another known fact is that the US Presidency has almost zero control over Wall Street.
          Hilary Clinton has Wall street campaign backers and so does Republican Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and a few others. These guys are the "darlings of Wall Street.

          So what's the real reason for the viscious mudslinging?

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 13 months ago in reply to this

            The only people that have a proven track record as not being in bed with the Wall Street money changers are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, unfortunately Liz is not running, but I wish she would. She takes no prisoners.

    2. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't say that republicans are afraid of Hilary. I'm not a right wing republican, but I do tend to vote republican in elections. I detest Hilary Clinton. I had no respect for her as first lady, I think she proved to be smarmy while in office and I found her performance as Secretary of State not only lackluster, but inept.

      I detest her so much I'm definitely an 'anyone but Hilary' voter. Even if Trump got the Republican nomination and she got the Democratic nomination...as much as Trump disgusts me....I think I'd probably vote for him if those were my only two choices.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        +1  I'm with you right down the line, including voting for Trump in spite of my disgust.  Anybody is better than Hilary - I'd vote for Homer Simpson or the Family Guy before her.

        1. Austinstar profile image81
          Austinstarposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Why don't you vote for the one you feel most qualifies to lead our country, instead of voting out of hatred? for Hillary? Pick someone and support them and quit trying to turn everyone against the ones that you don't like. In other words, be positive instead of negative.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Because none of them qualifies to lead our country.  Only to do the least amount of damage, and that is insufficient to support them.  IMHO.

            1. Austinstar profile image81
              Austinstarposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              I guess YOU are going to have to run then.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Not bloody likely!  Because I'm not qualified either.  About the best I could do is to veto any bill that crossed my desk. Which might actually not be a bad thing - if a bill cannot garner a 2/3 support of the people should it be a law at all? 

                Wanna vote for me?  And maybe a few mil into the old campaign chest?

      2. Austinstar profile image81
        Austinstarposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        Well, who do you think would make a better President? Why don't you campaign for that person instead of running down people you DON'T like?

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          I was responding to the OP. Had the OP asked who I thought would make a good president I would have responded differently.

          Anyway. I'm not running her down. I've given you my honest assessment of her. I didn't volunteer the information. The OP asked.

    3. Conservative Lady profile image83
      Conservative Ladyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      But what has Hillary accomplished to make her the best candidate for president? - legitimate question.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        Good evening, Madam. I am happy to have the opportunity to respond to your question, at least in part.

        First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College.
        Yale Law School graduate.
        Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
        Practicing civil litigation attorney.
        Full-time Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
        First Lady of Arkansas.
        First Lady of the United States.
        The very first FLOTUS in US History with a postgraduate degree.
        The only FLOTUS elected to the United States Senate serving two terms representing the State of New York.
        Member of the US Cabinet serving as US Secretary of State.
        Adviser to the President of the United States who was present in the White House situation room on the night of Bin Laden’s death.
        http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/6543020.jpg
        Published author and multiple GRAMMY Award winner for Best Spoken Word Album.

        Now, if you will favor me by answering one question that I have:
        What has Donald Trump accomplished to make him the best candidate for president?

        Thank you in advance for your reply.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. Conservative Lady profile image83
          Conservative Ladyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          I am not a Trump fan so I will not try to take on your request for his accomplishments; that would not be fair to him or anyone else for that matter. You did great at outlining Hillary's legal degrees and I respect her education accomplishments, but, there are thousands of attorneys in the country and that doesn't make them an ideal candidate for President of this fine country. I disregard the "First lady" of anything roles as that is not an accomplishment that is an acquired title from being married to someone who did accomplish something. In my humble opinion Hillary was handed the Secretary of State position to make up for Obama taking her "turn" as President back in 2008; she was the anointed one until Obama rose up and stole the thunder (and the press). You seem to be well educated about Mrs. Clinton, may I ask your opinion on her flat out lies such as "Benghazi was the result of a horrible anti Islam video"  "I did not send or receive classified materials via personal email", " My daughter Chelsea Clinton was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11." Immensely insensitive to those who actually were affected by this horrific attack, Hillary later admitted that Chelsea was actually safely in her Union Square apartment at the time of the attack. "She landed under sniper fire in Bosnia" "She was named after Sir Edmund Hillary" "Her family was dead broke when they left the White House"  She claims to have been instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process. Except those who actually were at the negotiating table say Hillary was nowhere to be seen…    But at this point What difference does it make anyway???

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Conservative Lady gets my +1 as many dollars as the United States is in debt.

            1. Conservative Lady profile image83
              Conservative Ladyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Thank you for the +1 - I am certain there are many here who are waiting to attack - it is refreshing to know I am not alone in my disgust of Hillary Clinton

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Two days before Trey Gowdy is going to question Hillary, he suddenly got more damaging evidence with the emails of Ambassador Chris Stevens.  I'd like to see her try and worm her way through the questioning. She still hasn't handed over all of her emails even though she has said that she did.
                http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … ium=social

          2. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            My thanks for sharing.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    4. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      I believe that Hillary is one of the most robotic political entities ever ,     Republicans see her as a voice  "on automatic pilot ",    for one , she has no original political  thought , she is the queen of rhetoric ,   I never hear her speak but what I determine that she is two faced and has practiced in front of mirrors forever .   Her entire persona  is "how can I say something without actually committing to one answer " , one meaning , her duality in all area's of  political accountability  is grossly  evident .

      Bottom line Hillary is a phony!

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        You have to first respect the opposition before you can pick it apart. Hillary is a very polished smooth politician. She has been married to one of the best that ever came along and she continues to have him as an advisor. She presents an image of established prominence and cool under fire rhetoric that wins her acceptance by those who are very much impressed by her tactics.

        Bernie is going to be hard pressed to overtake her as his awkward and rehearsed rants are directed towards presenting his views and solutions while ignoring the social aspect of bringing it to Hillary. He won't direct criticism at her but instead makes statements that don't address her but target her ideas.

        She on the other hand absorbs all his arguments and claims them as her own. Very slick and business as usual. We will wind up with Hillary because she is slyer than all of us, Trump included. We are a stupid country. Not all of us but enough.

  2. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

    Just listened to a news story about and by democratic strategist's about the white house wars within party lines ,  Obama is directing  FBI investigation of Hillary -and  has Joe Biden waiting in the wings .  AS important as the next presidency is the  aura of  foundations AFTER  Obama's terms end .   

    Obama's  after term world foundations , reputation and  images are issue # ! now .  What  would it look like if the continued   Clinton Dynasty were able to determine Obama's legacy ?  Very interesting strategizing  going on INSIDE of one party .   

    Prediction ,   Obama to Pardon Clinton for her "incompetence " in her  embassy ghosts'  , after Biden is  mostly nominated .       Watch and learn political strategizing .

  3. FitnezzJim profile image87
    FitnezzJimposted 13 months ago

    Thank you, Quilligrapher.

  4. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 13 months ago

    Thank you, Quilligrapher.  I get rather upset when I see people such as the Clintons being above the law.  It is not my place to convict Hillary but it is my strong conviction that she has broken the law (and is guilty) putting the US at great risk with classified information on her personal unsecured servers by her own admission.  I am firm on my beliefs that she needs to be held accountable.  (But, Obama will likely pardon her to save his own behind.)

    I find it terrifying that the president of the US has not personally taken action but instead would seem to like to make this pesky little mistake go away. 

    Benghazi

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      Hello again, Colorfulone.

      "The president of the US has not personally taken action but instead would seem to like to make this pesky little mistake go away."

      This is an interesting perspective to have in light of the facts proving it is untrue.  Where were you, Colorfulone, in October 2012, when Secretary Clinton said she was responsible for security at the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi? The Wall Street Journal reported at the time, “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she takes responsibility for security at the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in an attack last month.”{1}

      Where were you, Colorfulone, when Secretary Clinton resigned her Cabinet position at the end of President Obama’s first term?

      The deaths of American diplomats in the line of duty are always very serious matters. I think we both agree on this. However, political hyperbole should not distort reality. Five other US Ambassadors have also been murdered by terrorists in the line of duty. Their deaths are also serious matters and congressional investigations into those events did not drag on for years. {2}

      In addition, to add another perspective, more than 4,500 US combatants were killed in Iraq and another 32,000 were wounded. Some Americans are saying this $3 trillion-plus war was to repay one family’s obligations to Halliburton and other Texas oil interests. Others are suggesting it was a mission of revenge against Saddam Hussein, the same man candidate George W. Bush targeted as “the guy who tried to kill my dad.” Congressional investigations into those events were never begun and they never dragged on for years either.{3} {4}   

      Shall we recall some more realities together?

      I recall over eight months of intense investigation. I remember Chairman Issa’s promise that his Benghazi "Whistle-blowers" would be "damaging," and even more promises from the chairman regarding long-awaited testimony from CIA employees that was another dud on arrival. The House GOP Majority Leader announced on May 13, 2013, “The time for wasting day after day investigating Benghazi is over.” “The American people don’t have an endless appetite for meaningless political theater,” the Republican leader also said when discussing the failure of the Benghazi investigation. He characterized the House hearings as “purely symbolic, pointless, and detached from reality.” These words were spoken by the Republican leader and not by a raving liberal with a political agenda. {5}

      What exactly is being accomplished by all of this faux-outrage? Benghazi would be a non-issue if it was not for the reality that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running again for the Oval Office. The disproportionate dismay over Benghazi is nothing but encore political theatrics aimed solely at undermining Hillary Clinton’s Presidential aspirations before she succeeds in humiliating the GOP again with their third successive defeat in a presidential election.

      After three years, Colorfulone, investigations conducted in the House of Representatives have determined that no laws have been broken, no criminal charges could be leveled, and there is no evidence of any punishable dereliction of duty. Therefore, the reality obvious to this observer is that the GOP is spending more taxpayer money just to derail the one potential presidential candidate they fear the most.

      "I get rather upset when I see people such as the Clintons being above the law."

      I gather when you say “upset” you mean emotional. There is already too much emotion in politics. There is a pressing need to set aside emotions and to focus on reality.

      Thanks so much for sharing with us, Colorfulone. 
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723 … 1445951162
      {2} http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-sev … uty-photos
      {3} http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 … t-worth-it
      {4} http://www.ipsnews.net/2004/10/politics … bushs-dad/
      {5} http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b … acare.html

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        You have presented a very thorough and concise statement of the legal argument and realities of the Clinton email fiasco. Is she culpable in the handling of the emails?  We may never know. The bigger question is has the GOP sufficiently smudged her reputation enough to compromise the publics perception of her and her ability to be trusted? I don't know and personally don't trust any of them in this corrupt political system. My problem with all of them is the money that invigorates and supports their aspirations to lead and ultimately follow those who put them there.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months ago

    From the start of the Bill Clinton administration there seemed to be an endless string of scandals or accusations of scandals directed at the president and Hillary.  With the exception of Monica Lewinsky, which he handed to his enemies on a silver platter, none of them produced results.  At some point I began asking myself, who will benefit from this scandal?  I ask myself this same question today regarding Hillary.  When accusations never end but are never proved true, you have to wonder who is behind them and what is their purpose?

    I think the republicans are afraid of losing again and that is the motivation for these endless attacks.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      So far the GOP is continuing in its old tactics of slander and accusatory rhetoric. Trump is the epitome of it by blaming all that went before him of incompetence and corruption. He calls this leadership? Unless the GOP gets onto tackling the issues and not filling us with hopes and whispers they will come up short again. The problem is what will we get and does it have anything to do with what Congress will go along with?

 
working