HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary Clinton Statement...

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:38 PM

Hillary Clinton Statement On President Obama's Executive Action On Immigration


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hillary-clinton-breaks-her-silence-on-immigration-reform-20141120

121 replies, 12522 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 121 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton Statement On President Obama's Executive Action On Immigration (Original post)
kpete Nov 2014 OP
BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #1
DallasNE Nov 2014 #71
trueblue2007 Nov 2014 #2
kpete Nov 2014 #8
hrmjustin Nov 2014 #3
Heather Kube Nov 2014 #106
femmocrat Nov 2014 #4
George II Nov 2014 #25
femmocrat Nov 2014 #51
George II Nov 2014 #54
NCTraveler Nov 2014 #43
femmocrat Nov 2014 #50
karynnj Nov 2014 #86
leftofcool Nov 2014 #5
Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2014 #6
spanone Nov 2014 #7
babylonsister Nov 2014 #9
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2014 #24
Veilex Nov 2014 #88
LynnTTT Nov 2014 #10
aspirant Nov 2014 #11
amandabeech Nov 2014 #103
LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #12
hrmjustin Nov 2014 #13
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #14
beerandjesus Nov 2014 #62
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #65
deurbano Nov 2014 #75
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #77
deurbano Nov 2014 #78
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #80
beerandjesus Nov 2014 #87
Dragonfli Nov 2014 #107
beerandjesus Nov 2014 #121
Veilex Nov 2014 #89
mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #15
arely staircase Nov 2014 #16
bigwillq Nov 2014 #17
BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2014 #18
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #19
Beausoir Nov 2014 #28
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #38
NCTraveler Nov 2014 #44
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #48
bahrbearian Nov 2014 #95
Vattel Nov 2014 #20
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #21
Vattel Nov 2014 #22
msanthrope Nov 2014 #40
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #60
msanthrope Nov 2014 #67
LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #73
Sheepshank Nov 2014 #74
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #81
Sheepshank Nov 2014 #84
Veilex Nov 2014 #90
George II Nov 2014 #26
Vattel Nov 2014 #27
joshcryer Nov 2014 #32
Vattel Nov 2014 #33
joshcryer Nov 2014 #34
Vattel Nov 2014 #39
joshcryer Nov 2014 #108
George II Nov 2014 #36
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #30
brooklynite Nov 2014 #31
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #42
George II Nov 2014 #37
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #45
George II Nov 2014 #55
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #72
pkdu Nov 2014 #82
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #98
pkdu Nov 2014 #119
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #120
George II Nov 2014 #92
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #99
navarth Nov 2014 #101
Veilex Nov 2014 #93
George II Nov 2014 #97
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #100
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
stonecutter357 Nov 2014 #111
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #116
George II Nov 2014 #113
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #114
LineLineLineLineReply .
stonecutter357 Nov 2014 #110
rhett o rick Nov 2014 #117
stonecutter357 Nov 2014 #118
Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #104
SunSeeker Nov 2014 #23
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2014 #29
Scuba Nov 2014 #35
NCTraveler Nov 2014 #46
Scuba Nov 2014 #49
NCTraveler Nov 2014 #52
Scuba Nov 2014 #53
NCTraveler Nov 2014 #56
Darb Nov 2014 #68
Scuba Nov 2014 #85
Scuba Nov 2014 #57
NCTraveler Nov 2014 #58
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2014 #69
RussBLib Nov 2014 #41
Pisces Nov 2014 #47
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2014 #59
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #63
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2014 #64
DFW Nov 2014 #66
Veilex Nov 2014 #94
McCamy Taylor Nov 2014 #61
ColesCountyDem Nov 2014 #70
OKNancy Nov 2014 #76
jwirr Nov 2014 #79
Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #83
jwirr Nov 2014 #91
OKNancy Nov 2014 #96
kentuck Nov 2014 #102
Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #105
OKNancy Nov 2014 #109
stonecutter357 Nov 2014 #112
freshwest Nov 2014 #115

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:39 PM

1. Strong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:54 PM

71. Mushy

Way to soft on whacking the House Republicans for a failure to bring a bill to the floor for a vote so it is a pipedream to expect Republicans to act any time soon.

Paul Ryan bemoaned the President not giving them a "few more weeks" to report out a bill. Excuse me but the Senate sent them a bill a year and a half ago so they have had way more than enough time to act. So why is Clinton so passive with talk about working together. Pure mush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:41 PM

2. link pleASE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:44 PM

8. thanks for having my back trueblue2007

link added to post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:41 PM

3. Thrilled Hillary supports him!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:07 PM

106. Me too! Love her so much for her pro-choice, pro-women politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:42 PM

4. Glad she supports it...

but she basically paraphrased what he said, more or less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:32 PM

25. Isn't that what "agreeing with" and "supporting" is?

If Obama said all the right things, no need to reword it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:03 AM

51. Where were the words "agree with"?

I don't see that. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #51)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:23 AM

54. See below.....please, let's not nitpick the words - she SUPPORTS what he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:42 AM

43. "but she basically paraphrased what he said, more or less. "

 

You mean, like, agreed with and supports him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:00 AM

50. Yes, but...

I was just kind of let down by the wording. It seemed like a staffer just repeated words and phrases from his address or from others I heard on TV all day. It just seemed to me that the former Secretary of State could offer a little more. JMO .... I'm not anti-Hillary.

I wonder what John Kerry had to say, if anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #50)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:26 PM

86. Secretary Kerry has been working non stop in Europe on the Iran negotiations

If he makes a statement, I assume it will be on how this affects foreign policy. Just as with Hillary Clinton last term, as SoS, he can not make political statements.

He did write a wonderful oped on the climate pact that Obama and China agreed on - the difference is that he was a key person on that and will likely be a key person on the next climate change agreement. (He also wrote the oped on the ISIS strategy - which he led on.) On this, I assume that Obama's speech itself is the explanation and outreach.


Other than being a private citizen, the biggest difference is that Hillary is thought to be preparing to run for President - thus her independent opinion on anything is very important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:42 PM

5. Awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:42 PM

6. Keep it up, Hillary. So far, so good.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:44 PM

7. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:45 PM

9. This is a no-brainer. Derp. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:08 PM

24. Pablum for the masses.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:38 PM

88. Ayup.

 

Nothing to see here. Move long...move along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 09:46 PM

10. Maybe she

figures he can wear em' down to a nub and she can sweep in, they can pretend they wanted to work with the President all along and we can finally move along. Three steps forward and two back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:02 PM

11. Bueno,bueno

My question is why now and not before the election for both of them? The reaction seems to be cheers and wasn't this delay to protect all the Blue Dogs? Where were the dem strategists that saw the possibility of latinos being enthused and then voting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:03 PM

103. With the exception of Colorado, the Senate seats up for grabs were generally

 

in states with low Latino voting populations and lots of other voters who would not be supportive of the President's actions.

In hindsight, the President might as well have done this before the election, but hindsight is always 20-20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:04 PM

12. Wow. That took a lot of courage

 

Not really. Typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:05 PM

13. Typical?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:08 PM

14. what is wrong?

 

Man oh man....no good deed goes unpunished by you huh?

ODS a chronic case...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:46 PM

62. So criticism of Hillary is an indicator of "ODS"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beerandjesus (Reply #62)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:52 PM

65. did you read the OP before posting....

 

the poster said "Typical" and it was ABOUT Obama...DUH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:28 PM

75. Isn't the OP about HRC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deurbano (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:34 PM

77. I read the typical as being....typical of Democrats...this poster is not very "into" Obama....

 

as this was a response TO Obama...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #77)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:38 PM

78. I think in this case, it makes more sense that he/she is responding about HRC's statement.

(Probably this poster isn't very into her, either?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deurbano (Reply #78)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:51 PM

80. No but it doesn't exclude the other....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deurbano (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:34 PM

87. Yes, quite obviously.

I didn't feel like beefing up VR's post count any more than I already had, which is why I didn't bother to respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beerandjesus (Reply #87)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:08 PM

107. Unfortunately VR has a severe case of ODS derangement syndrome

Also known as left wing derangement syndrome, anyone not sufficiently to the right of Reagan within the party appears deranged to her.

Perhaps someday she will realize that the party has principles as well as personalities to idolize and join policy discussion rather than simply being nasty to and attacking anyone to the left of her significantly rightward leaning idol worship.

At least she isn't into Beiber I guess, same phenomenon, but even sadder than how she presents now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #107)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 10:42 AM

121. Hahahaha, nailed it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:39 PM

89. Indeed

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:19 PM

15. That's called

An announcement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:21 PM

16. HRC has his back nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:22 PM

17. Clinton/Obama '16

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:32 PM

18. well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:33 PM

19. Way to go Pres. Obama!

Hillary comes off as a perennial panderer.

Actually, it's kinda surprising she wet her finger
to check which way the wind is blowing so quickly!

Then again, considering...
...when an immigration activist asked Clinton
"if you stand by the president's delay on immigration,"
she replied, "I think we have to elect more Democrats."

Whatever, Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:42 PM

28. Honest to god...

 

are you a writer for The Onion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beausoir (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:33 AM

38. The Onion you say? They hiring?

Not sure why you ask that question?
I'll give a somewhat earnest reply...

Hillary has a record of waiting to see
which way the political winds are blowing.
She rarely makes BOLD statements about
what she thinks or will do without POLITICAL CALCULATION.
That's not leadership,
that's pandering for self-serving purposes.

She has gone AGAINST Pres. Obama in the past.
There is no reason why she would need to withhold
making a statement about where SHE STANDS on immigration.

For example she undermined Obama's policy in her push for war...

Now Clinton is offering a blunt retort...
“Great nations need organizing principles — and
‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

<snip>

“You know, when you’re down on yourself,
and when you are hunkering down and pulling back,
you’re not going to make any better decisions than when
you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward,”
Clinton said.

Yeah, that's what we need aggressive belligerent actions!
Thanks Hillary!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-criticizes-president-obamas-foreign-policy-in-interview-with-the-atlantic/2014/08/11/46d30564-2170-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:45 AM

44. lol. You win something. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:56 AM

48. The interweb??? Can I win the interweb today??? :~)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #48)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:44 PM

95. Just for the Day, tomorrow you have to give it back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:40 PM

20. She was dodging questions about it earlier. I guess the polling data came in.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:51 PM

21. By "polling data" do you mean the last election...

...because winning elections is difficult when
huge parts of the electorate are ignored!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 10:57 PM

22. I don't think Clinton's heart is in the right place on this issue. I hope I am wrong.

 

If she feels so strongly about it, why was she dodging questions about it a few days ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:55 AM

40. Deference to the head of the party. She rightly said nothing until POTUS acted. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #60)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:55 PM

67. Co-ordinated political remarks. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #67)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:03 PM

73. What does that mean, saying the President does stupid stuff

 

(and actually admitting she herself did stupid stuff as she was SoS)
it seems co-ordinated alright, but with who and why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:11 PM

74. Clinton and Obama agree to help a large part of the electorate

 

even when they had failed to turn out to the polls in droves...and they knew something was coming down the pike. Your interprestion of events if poorly lacking deeper understanding.

It would appear, that Clinton and Obama do this with or without the voting support of this electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #74)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:06 PM

81. I don't see any "agreement"?

It appears to be conjecture that "they agree".
It also has the optics that Hillary is simply
gauging the political winds.

Who exactly is "they" in...
and they knew something was coming down the pike.


Lasty, to your suggestion that I'm deficient in my
...interprestion of events if poorly lacking deeper understanding.

I do understand Eleventy Dimensional Chess.
I can see the difference between the short and long game.
I do comprehend the logic of sacrificing pawns to capture the queen.
Hillary is playing for the 3rd Way interests, not immigrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:19 PM

84. yeah sure whatev...haven't you been banned once? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:46 PM

90. "Hillary is playing for the 3rd Way interests, not immigrants."

 

HRC loves her some Goldman Sachs 3rd Way money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:34 PM

26. Dodging? Specifics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:40 PM

27. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/hillary-clinton-confronta_n_5824096.html

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:01 AM

32. Total misrepresentation.

She was asked what she thought about "Obama delaying" and she refused to dignify it with an answer.

She said "We got to keep working."

That's what Obama did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:29 AM

33. What was wrong with the question? It was a fair question that she dodged for political reasons.

 

Edited to add: She has been all over the map on border security and immigration issues, sometimes making statements worthy of Ted Cruz, sometimes making more moderate statements, and sometimes deliberately avoiding questions. How am I supposed to take anything she says seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:35 AM

34. No, it wasn't a "fair" question.

As we see with Obama going forward with the implementation of the reforms.

That was 2 months ago. Clinton wasn't privy to the operational aspects behind the scenes.

You don't dignify that kind of bait with an answer.

Well, she could have. She could've confronted them "What information do you have that indicates that Obama is 'delaying' the implementation of immigration reform? Should the President not be sure all legislative options are expended?"

Of course, people like you would still have a problem with that, and, oh, I'm sure the MSM would lose their shit about how Clinton was "confrontational" to some poor question baiters. Despite that the Democrats had already passed DREAM in the Senate.

So as far as "dodging?" Nope. She just didn't dignify it with an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:51 AM

39. With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

You don't seem to be aware that Obama did delay the executive order. He said as much. So it would have been kind of dumb for Clinton to say, "What information do you have that indicates that Obama is 'delaying' the implementation of immigration reform? Should the President not be sure all legislative options are expended?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:12 PM

108. Oh, the "wait until the elections" thing.

That presumes that all legislative options were expended before the elections. This is objectively false because there were legislative actions well into Oct. The Republicans even tried to prevent Obama from making an executive order to do immigration reform. Once that happened it became clear that the legislative options were expended.

This is a talking point, and it's one that the DC politicians who aren't actually in the executive branch want to spread, because it allows them to pander to constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to George II (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:56 PM

30. Here's a specific --- H. Clinton gave her integrity to Georgie Bush in 2002. Why would we ever

 

trust her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:26 AM

31. Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004?

And are you ready to throw Joe Biden over the side as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:38 AM

42. Ah yes, the questions of insinuation. The technique used when one doesn't

 

have the confidence of stating their own opinion* regarding H. Clinton's integrity. Let's see if we can clear up your insinuations.

"Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004" The implication of course being that if I was a good Democrat and supported the Democratic candidate and since that candidate was one that betrayed us then I would be obligated to forgive H. Clinton for her betrayal. Even you should admit how weak that argument is.

"are you ready to throw Joe Biden over the side as well?" I guess the insinuation here is that before I can be critical of H. Clinton's betrayal, I have to acknowledge Joe Biden's betrayal. If I did would you then come back with a list of others that didn't have the integrity to stand up to George Bush and ask me one by one to denounce them?

Here are some questions for you:
Do you think the decision to invade Iraq was possibly the most disastrous decision in the last century?
Do you think George Bush was lying when he told us there were WMD in Iraq, the Iraq was building nuclear weapons, and that Iraq was aiding al Qaeda?
Do you think H. Clinton knew she was lying when she gave her famous speech that echoed the Republicans selling points for the war?
Do you think H. Clinton showed her lack of integrity at that important time?
Do you think she can be trusted now? If so, why?
Don't you think we can find other candidates that have integrity?

* This is a general statement, I am sure you are willing to clearly state your opinion regarding H. Clinton's integrity.

For the record, I condemn all that voted for the Iraq War, including John Kerry and Joe Biden. Some people claim there is not a difference between the major parties. Well this vote was a good opportunity to prove that wrong. To prove that the DEmocratic Party stood for principles and could stand up for the people. And bravo to those that stood up against the Oligarch's thirst for war and damn those that cashed in their integrity for whatever their excuse was. If we have no better choices than those that proved they have zero integrity, then we are already lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:30 AM

37. Yeah, that was REALLLL "specific"!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:46 AM

45. I am glad we agree. We have better choices than those that betrayed us. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #45)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:24 AM

55. More vagueness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #55)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:58 PM

72. Vague? How so? H. Clinton, as well as a number of other so-called Democrats, counldn't

 

stand up to George Bush. They chose Bush and the Republicans over their constituents, the American people, our troops, and the innocent Iraqi people. That's a documented fact. H. Clinton gave a speech about why we should go to war that was probably more convincing than any Republican. She reiterated the lies that the Republicans were spouting. At a time when we needed her support the most, she, not only caved, but whole heartedly stood behind the lying Republicans.

My point is why would we choose her over other candidates that have integrity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #72)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:14 PM

82. You mean like " Warren 2016" ....when exactly will you take that down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #82)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:34 PM

98. So are you agreeing that there are candidates available with integrity so we

 

aren't obligated to support HRC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #98)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:41 PM

119. I'll ignore the "integrity" bait and agree , yes - any candidate , right up until the nomination

at that point - unless you're willing to see two more Old White Catholic Rightwingers on the Supreme Court...get behind the Nominee with all you have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #119)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:49 PM

120. Why can't we talk about integrity? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #72)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:59 PM

92. Yes, vague, until this post you did not say one specific thing she did to "betray us"..

...and even in this post you dance around what she did. Probably because you don't want to mention the AUMF which DOZENS of Democrats voted for not because they were in cahoots with republicans or the boogy-man "MIC", but because they were MISLED into voting for it with bogus "intelligence".

So, did you need ME to say how she "betrayed" us? Why couldn't you say it yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:42 PM

99. I will be glad to tell you. I don't for a second believe that HRC was "misled".

 

The bogus intelligence that you refer to stunk from high heaven. Many good people screamed that the intelligence was bogus. Do you really believe she was fooled? The rule of thumb is that Republicans lie. Isn't she aware of that?

If she was fooled, then why should we support someone so easily fooled while experts were pointing out the falicies of the intelligence?

And she didn't reluctantly "go along" she went to lengths to sell the war, help Bush and the neocons sell the war.

Her vote on the AUMF was a betrayal.

We can do much better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #99)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:49 PM

101. well done. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #55)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:02 PM

93. Here's somthing specific...

 

HRC has taken considerable donations from the likes of Goldman Sachs... and she has spoken on their behalf as a direct result.
She is beholden to the banks. She is far more likely to serve the Banks and wall street than the middle class.
I find that to be quite specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #93)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:53 PM

97. Are you sure that when (and IF) Warren starts running for President she won't take money...

....from any banks or financial institutions?

This is national politics in the United States in the 21st Century. In order to win a Presidential nomination and the Presidency, one has to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, and that's not going to all come from members of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #97)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:45 PM

100. I am saying that HRC has no integrity and shouldn't be our candidate. What does how I feel

 

about Sen Warren have to do with that?

Why don't you tell us how you feel instead of asking me a bunch of pointed questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #100)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:39 PM

111. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #111)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:56 PM

116. The caption under your picture of HRC laughing her head off should read, "LOL, they bought the bs

 

about WMD in Iraq. Fools. I bet they will forget I figuratively kissed Bush's ass in 2002 and nominate me. LOL. Fools."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #100)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:51 PM

113. Well, apparently Clinton abandoned her integrity because she took campaign donations.....

....from financial institutions, so apparently that could or should be said for all candidates, correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #113)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:05 PM

114. I am saying she abandoned her integrity when she choose to abandon the American people and

 

throw in with Georgie Porgie. Not only did she go along, she did a more convincing job of selling the lies.

I am saying that we have other choices that HAVE INTEGRITY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:38 PM

110. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #110)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:00 AM

117. I am not surprised that you have nothing to add. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #117)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 08:23 AM

118. nothing to add.

but a vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:04 PM

104. Why should she respond to Obama's action before he takes the action?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:05 PM

23. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 20, 2014, 11:43 PM

29. Good statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:32 AM

35. Um, Hillary, quit supporting the Republican memes. These folks are already paying taxes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:55 AM

46. It is not a Republican meme in any way.

 

It is reality and another way those who come here undocumented are exploited. Here in the Tampa Bay Area we have a large amount of undocumented workers who are taken advantage of by being paid low wages, with no securities, under the table. The employer and employee pay nothing in federal taxes. It is another way they are abused and you are claiming it is a Republican meme. When they are paid in this manner the business themselves do not pay taxes on that labor. So no, people are not paying the correct taxes, undocumented or not. It should be a very important part of our message and what you are calling a republican meme is actually the systems inherent abuse of humans.

Were they given the ability to get a tax id number? Yes. Did they all run out to get one? No. Why when they are still in fear of being deported. We have areas where day laborers are picked up first thing in the morning by abusive citizens with few ethics if any. The fact we are treating them as less-thans and they aren't allowed to join the system is something we should be shouting from the rooftops, not putting our hands over our ears and yelling "right wing meme."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:57 AM

49. Sales, taxes, gas taxes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:04 AM

52. You seem to be avoiding a tax. Wonder why that is.

 

Really could be no more clear that the one you forgot is the one I was addressing. Really couldn't have been more clear. I also don't recall at any point saying they pay no taxes. You might want to show me where I did. You seem to have interest in the taxes they pay, yet the ones not being paid that are used to exploit them, you are calling a right wing meme. When businesses are using that exact tax as a reason to exploit them you should want it to stop and talk often about it. Not try to shut down conversation about it with the failed "its a right wing meme" debate tactic.

At the same time you must make the claim that the business all over our country, not paying their fair share of income taxes by exploiting this situation, are good too. This is one of the huge way in which we are currently allowing undocumented immigrants to be exploited. I have a big problem with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #52)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:06 AM

53. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. These folks pay taxes, period. Saying they don't is a lie.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #53)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:42 AM

56. I put not one word in your mouth.

 

Seems I made that claim toward you in your post and you didn't like it. Also seems you refuse to honestly discuss the inherent problems with respect to immigration. That is what this is. An inherent flaw in the system that allows employers to abuse people. You have attempted to call that discussion a right wing meme. As you have tried to put words in my mouth again, I will ask you to back up the claim you are making against me again. When did I say they pay no taxes. That is a blatant falsehood on your part. You should really join the debate on immigration and try to grasp the inherent flaw you are refusing to say anything about. Actually you are doing just the opposite. You are trying to shut down discussion by conflating a true progressive issue and concern with a right wing meme.

" These folks pay taxes, period. Saying they don't is a lie."

At no point have I said they didn't. You have made something up whole cloth to attempt to back up your initial flawed statement. You are trying to shut down discussion of a very important progressive issue with the joke line of "right wing meme.: They sell band aids for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #53)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:07 PM

68. Not all pay income taxes. If you think there are no undocumented workers

 

being paid cash under the table, then you need to rethink it, because there are many. Millions I'd say.

And that means no payroll taxes too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #68)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:21 PM

85. I never made that claim. But Hillary's statement can easily be interpreted to mean ...

 

... that they pay no taxes. That's the way the right-wing all intepret it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #52)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:00 PM

57. "At the same time you must make the claim ..."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #57)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:37 PM

58. Correct. I am assuming you attempt to go through life with intellectual consistency.

 

This is a progressive issue. You shouldn't attempt to shut down debate of a progressive issue by yelling "right wing meme" and by putting words in my mouth. Still waiting for you to show me where I said they pay no taxes at all. Something you attempted to falsely attribute to me. I don't expect that to happen when you think business abusing humans like this is a "right wing meme."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:18 PM

69. then obama should also stop supporting it. i heard him yesterday

 

and he clearly brought up back taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:02 AM

41. she said all the right things - n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:55 AM

47. I like it. I am glad she came out and publicly supported the Executive Order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:42 PM

59. Sometimes the right and politically expedient thing to do intersect.

This is one of these instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #59)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:47 PM

63. The broken clock, and blind squirrel meme is no cause to praise Hillary ;~/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #63)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:51 PM

64. Praising people for doing the right thing helps to ensure they do the right thing in the future.

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #64)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:54 PM

66. Sure does. It's called positive reinforcement.

And it works on humans AFTER they're 2 years old, too--on some even when they run for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #66)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:23 PM

94. " it works on humans AFTER they're 2 years old, too--on some even when they run for president."

 

Absolutely true! Goldman Sachs and the other banksters agree with you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:43 PM

61. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:39 PM

70. Thank you, secretary Clinton! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:29 PM

76. If anyone would like facts and not memes about Hillary Clinton's stance in immigration reform

Co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004

Q: Were you missing in action when Obama and McCain and Kennedy started formulating comprehensive immigration reform?
A: I co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004. So I’ve been on record on behalf of this for quite some time. Representing New York, the home of the Statue of Liberty, bringing all of our immigrants to our shores, has been not only an extraordinary privilege, but given me the opportunity to speak out on these issues. When the House passed the most mean-spirited provision that said, if you were to give any help whatsoever to someone here illegally, you would commit a crime, I stood up and said that would have criminalized the Good Samaritan and Jesus Christ himself. I have been on record on this against this kind of demagoguery, this mean-spiritedness. It is something that I take very personally, because I have not only worked on behalf of immigrants; I have been working to make conditions better for many years. But let’s do it in a practical, realistic approach.
----------------

Voted yes on McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill; Bill S.1639 ; vote number 2007-235 on Jun 28, 2007
-----------------

Full list:
2007: Focus on comprehensive reform, not driver's licenses. (Jan 2010)
Allow driver's licenses for illegals until we get reform. (Jan 2010)
NY licenses for illegals fills federal gap. (Aug 2009)
No official English, but keep common unifying language. (Feb 2008)
Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days. (Feb 2008)
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families. (Feb 2008)
Border fence that cuts off a college campus is absurd. (Feb 2008)
Deploy technology & personnel, not a border fence. (Feb 2008)
Guest workers only for farms, to address labor shortage. (Feb 2008)
Don’t turn local police into immigration enforcers. (Feb 2008)
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic. (Jan 2008)
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk. (Jan 2008)
Exploitation of undocumented workers drives down wages. (Jan 2008)
Co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004. (Jan 2008)
English unifies us; teach ESL but support other languages. (Dec 2007)
Crack down on employers who exploit undocumented workers. (Dec 2007)
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Denied saying licensing illegals “made sense”. (Oct 2007)
Immigrant license issue needs federal action on reform. (Oct 2007)
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders. (Sep 2007)
Immigration reform needs family unification as one goal. (Sep 2007)
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ. (Sep 2007)
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration. (Sep 2007)
Making English official imperils crises needing translators. (Jun 2007)
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows. (Apr 2007)
Keep New York-Ontario border passport-free for tourism. (Oct 2006)
Adamantly against illegal immigrants. (Sep 2005)

-----------------------------
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Immigration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:44 PM

79. I am with her on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #79)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:15 PM

83. It should be that SHE is WITH us ;~/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #83)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 03:49 PM

91. Of course but at least this time she seems to know what to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #83)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:45 PM

96. she has been. Look at her past speeches and votes

Co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004 ---------- TEN years ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 05:53 PM

102. Better late than never...

I suppose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #102)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:07 PM

105. Remind me of when Obama made his statement, was it yesterday? Yes if she had

"responded" before he made his statement last night it would not be a response to his statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #102)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:15 PM

109. she has been pro-reform for many years

voted that way in the Senate as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 06:41 PM

112. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:48 PM

115. Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread