Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
When is the last time Bush was in office or relevant? Oh yea 8 years ago, and when is the last time Clinton or Obama where relevant, oh yea. The past seven and current.
Today you blamed B. Clinton and claimed he gave NK nukes. When did Bill leave office? Was it 15ish ago?
Originally posted by psmith81992
I give credit exactly where credit is due.
No, you don't. I present you with articles, numbers, and charts supporting my views.
You disagree with them, present a different conclusion that seemed to actively contradict the presented numbers (five years of not helping, you claimed), I ask where it comes from, and get nothing- either an acknowledgement of the numbers I posted and Obama's role in them, or even support for your view that something different happened.
If you view that as giving credit where credit is due, then you seem not to view "basic and heavily supported numbers of a situation with evidence of who caused them and how," as sufficient to gain 'due credit'. At which point I must conclude your standards of what's due credit are not particularly fact-based ones.
You on the other hand make excuses anytime Obama or Hilary are mentioned. Not once have you criticized them for anything (unlike I've done with Bush).
That'd be more believable if I hadn't done so with Hillary and her *actual* failings in Benghazi in this page of this thread.
And note, I believe you can criticize Bush. It's your ability to give credit to Hillary and Obama I doubt.
Also your ability to properly acknowledge the level of credit/blame I give Hillary and Obama. If I acknowledge stuff regularly but you dismiss it because I'm not angry about it / view it as outweighed by other stuff, then that's your problem.
I mean I've read what you would consider criticism but it's more of "meh" than anything else.
Ok, so your problem with me is now that I acknowledge stuff, but I don't get angry about it.
That's no longer about me giving credit where it's due, that's about me not feeling the same about it as you- which is another matter entirely. I have different priorities than you, I view some stuff as important that you don't, and you view some stuff as important that I don't. That's not a factual bias, that's a difference of opinions.
If someone acknowledges fault, but simply doesn't view it as a major fault that they care about, or the same with credit, then they're being honest.
I *don't* see you as doing this with Obama and Hillary's successes- you deny successes, rather than saying, "Sure, he did this, but I'm much more concerned about that." Which is a reasonable stance to take.
If your definition of 'bias' is 'acknowledges problems but often doesn't care about them,' then that's just not liking what I say because I disagree with you.
That's not bias or apologism, that's me not being on your side, and if you want to weasel-word around that and try and attack my credibility rather than my point or my facts, well, that's a problem on your end.
My bias or lackthereof has nothing to do with you being an apologist. You claimed not even democrats blame Hilary for Benghazi, I gave you links that state the opposite.
Hm? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and definitely not in the post you responded to with your links.
What I said- and often say- was Republican investigations found no wrongdoing. Which is what the investigations actually concluded. They did find that actions could've presented to it- which Hillary copped to and I also acknowledged.
Do you really think when I used the phrase "Your [Time-Immemorial's] own party" that I meant Democrats?
What is the excuse this time?
That you're clearly misrepresenting me in order to present me as saying something that I didn't.
This is also why I don't buy your claims of 'you're an apologist.' It doesn't help your case or credibility when you accuse me of it for things I didn't say.
Originally posted by Q99
No, you don't. I present you with articles, numbers, and charts supporting my views.You disagree with them, present a different conclusion that seemed to actively contradict the presented numbers (five years of not helping, you claimed), I ask where it comes from, and get nothing- either an acknowledgement of the numbers I posted and Obama's role in them, or even support for your view that something different happened.
If you view that as giving credit where credit is due, then you seem not to view "basic and heavily supported numbers of a situation with evidence of who caused them and how," as sufficient to gain 'due credit'. At which point I must conclude your standards of what's due credit are not particularly fact-based ones.
That'd be more believable if I hadn't done so with Hillary and her *actual* failings in Benghazi in this page of this thread.
And note, I believe you can criticize Bush. It's your ability to give credit to Hillary and Obama I doubt.
Also your ability to properly acknowledge the level of credit/blame I give Hillary and Obama. If I acknowledge stuff regularly but you dismiss it because I'm not angry about it / view it as outweighed by other stuff, then that's your problem.
Ok, so your problem with me is now that I acknowledge stuff, but I don't get angry about it.
That's no longer about me giving credit where it's due, that's about me not feeling the same about it as you- which is another matter entirely. I have different priorities than you, I view some stuff as important that you don't, and you view some stuff as important that I don't. That's not a factual bias, that's a difference of opinions.
If someone acknowledges fault, but simply doesn't view it as a major fault that they care about, or the same with credit, then they're being honest.
I *don't* see you as doing this with Obama and Hillary's successes- you deny successes, rather than saying, "Sure, he did this, but I'm much more concerned about that." Which is a reasonable stance to take.
If your definition of 'bias' is 'acknowledges problems but often doesn't care about them,' then that's just not liking what I say because I disagree with you.
That's not bias or apologism, that's me not being on your side, and if you want to weasel-word around that and try and attack my credibility rather than my point or my facts, well, that's a problem on your end.
Hm? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and definitely not in the post you responded to with your links.
What I said- and often say- was Republican investigations found no wrongdoing. Which is what the investigations actually concluded. They did find that actions could've presented to it- which Hillary copped to and I also acknowledged.
Do you really think when I used the phrase "Your [Time-Immemorial's] own party" that I meant Democrats?
That you're clearly misrepresenting me in order to present me as saying something that I didn't.
This is also why I don't buy your claims of 'you're an apologist.' It doesn't help your case or credibility when you accuse me of it for things I didn't say.
So all that and no Hilary criticism.
And you just said you were not bias.
Its all about her successes, yet what are they again?
LOL@all the people still upset that Hillary is still rightfully being blamed for Benghazi. NO matter how many times all the libs cry "She did nothing wrong!" will change the fact that she did and people will never forget what that b**** did. ESpecially considering the true story about Benghazi is set to come out next year right before the elections. 🙂
Originally posted by Q99
No, you don't. I present you with articles, numbers, and charts supporting my views.You disagree with them, present a different conclusion that seemed to actively contradict the presented numbers (five years of not helping, you claimed), I ask where it comes from, and get nothing- either an acknowledgement of the numbers I posted and Obama's role in them, or even support for your view that something different happened.
If you view that as giving credit where credit is due, then you seem not to view "basic and heavily supported numbers of a situation with evidence of who caused them and how," as sufficient to gain 'due credit'. At which point I must conclude your standards of what's due credit are not particularly fact-based ones.
That'd be more believable if I hadn't done so with Hillary and her *actual* failings in Benghazi in this page of this thread.
And note, I believe you can criticize Bush. It's your ability to give credit to Hillary and Obama I doubt.
Also your ability to properly acknowledge the level of credit/blame I give Hillary and Obama. If I acknowledge stuff regularly but you dismiss it because I'm not angry about it / view it as outweighed by other stuff, then that's your problem.
Ok, so your problem with me is now that I acknowledge stuff, but I don't get angry about it.
That's no longer about me giving credit where it's due, that's about me not feeling the same about it as you- which is another matter entirely. I have different priorities than you, I view some stuff as important that you don't, and you view some stuff as important that I don't. That's not a factual bias, that's a difference of opinions.
If someone acknowledges fault, but simply doesn't view it as a major fault that they care about, or the same with credit, then they're being honest.
I *don't* see you as doing this with Obama and Hillary's successes- you deny successes, rather than saying, "Sure, he did this, but I'm much more concerned about that." Which is a reasonable stance to take.
If your definition of 'bias' is 'acknowledges problems but often doesn't care about them,' then that's just not liking what I say because I disagree with you.
That's not bias or apologism, that's me not being on your side, and if you want to weasel-word around that and try and attack my credibility rather than my point or my facts, well, that's a problem on your end.
Hm? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and definitely not in the post you responded to with your links.
What I said- and often say- was Republican investigations found no wrongdoing. Which is what the investigations actually concluded. They did find that actions could've presented to it- which Hillary copped to and I also acknowledged.
Do you really think when I used the phrase "Your [Time-Immemorial's] own party" that I meant Democrats?
That you're clearly misrepresenting me in order to present me as saying something that I didn't.
This is also why I don't buy your claims of 'you're an apologist.' It doesn't help your case or credibility when you accuse me of it for things I didn't say.
And I present facts to you, where your response is akin to it's "Bush's fault". Claiming I didn't provide evidence means you ignored said evidence. So there's bias right there. You then proceeded to ignore my evidence against your claim of "Democrats don't even blame hillary for benghazi". So to call you biased and an apologist is pretty accurate considering everything you choose to overlook.
trying to attack on something where she was repeatedly found to have done no wrongdoing by your own party.
I really would listen to someone list Hilary's sucesses.
These do not include being the first lady, as she was already married before she became first lady.
This does not include her being a jr senator which was given to her.
And this does not include Obama taking her out of the race by giving her Sec position.
What are her actual successes in the offices that she was given?
Originally posted by Robtarduh... cause he wants to make this country great again. duh?
Clinton's a vehement career politician and former first lady, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that she aspires to be president and the first female president.The better question: Why does Trump want to be president? He's a multi-billionaire who was liberal/democratic for most of his life and now he wants to be a conservative/republican president. That's like asking for massive amounts of stress when your life could be a perpetual vacation.
unlike hillary who is most likely a reptilian shape-shifter that just wants to keep this country firmly under the control of the reptilian illuminati
that's why she has so much trouble picking an accent. that's not a human problem. that's a reptilian-trying-their-hardest-to-mimic-a-human problem.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So all that and no Hilary criticism.
So, you just responded to a post where I said Hillary could've prevented something but failed to, as a lack of criticism.
It really is being clear that by 'bias' and 'not criticizing' you lot do just mean 'I don't get mad about smaller problems.'
Its all about her successes, yet what are they again?
Alright, to just go through her wikipedia page and drop off a few...
"Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents could not provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law."
" She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[159] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome."
"Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[50] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady."
"Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment. She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders."
"In 2005, Clinton and Senator Lindsey Graham cosponsored the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, which provides incentives and rewards for completely domestic American manufacturing companies" -Bipartisan, no less. She's willing to work with opponents.
"Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities. She cosponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology.[53] She included language in an energy bill to provide tax exempt bonding authority for environmentally-conscious construction projects,[54] and introduced an amendment that funds job creation to repair, renovate and modernize public schools.[54]"
So, a lot of health efforts, education efforts, some job efforts, research efforts.. not a complete list. That's First Lady and Senate stuff.
Now on to Secretary of State...
"Clinton spent her initial days as Secretary of State telephoning dozens of world leaders.[49] She said the world was eager to see a new American foreign policy and that, "There is a great exhalation of breath going on around the world. We've got a lot of damage to repair."[49] She did indicate that not every past policy would be repudiated, and specifically said it was essential that the six-party talks over the North Korean nuclear weapons program continue." -These, of course, turned out to be successful.
"In July 2009, Clinton announced a new State Department initiative, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, to establish specific objectives for the State Department's diplomatic missions abroad."
"In September, Clinton unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative at the annual meeting of her husband's Clinton Global Initiative.[66][67] The goal of the new initiative is to battle hunger worldwide on a strategic basis as a key part of U.S. foreign policy, rather than just react to food shortage emergencies as they occur."
"Clinton returned to the diplomatic scene and responded to the ongoing 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, in which plans for the Honduran fourth ballot box referendum had led to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, and which was becoming Latin America's worst political crisis in some years.[88] In early July, she sat down with ousted President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya, who agreed on a U.S.-backed proposal to begin talks with the de facto Roberto Micheletti governmen. ... Clinton and the U.S. ended up supporting the winner of the 2009 Honduran general election, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, with Clinton characterizing the elections as "free and fair" and Lobo as holding a strong commitment to democracy and the rule of constitutional law.[92]"
"Clinton co-chaired the high-level U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington, D.C. on July 27–28, 2009 and led the Strategic Track for the United States."
"Occasionally, she pushed back in a more blunt fashion than usual for diplomats, explicitly wondering why Pakistan had not been more successful in combating al Qaeda "if they wanted to."[35] Member of Parliament and government spokesperson Farahnaz Ispahani said, "In the past, when the Americans came, they would talk to the generals and go home. Clinton's willingness to meet with everyone, hostile or not, has made a big impression – and because she's Hillary Clinton, with a real history of affinity for this country, it means so much more.""
Improving relations with various countries- with some countries noting how much better she was than previous people- setting groundwork for the Iran deal, assisting Honduras in getting back to democracy, stepping up US efforts against world hunger and using that as a tool to bring stability...
To go for how experts on the matter view her SoS term,
Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said that "She's coming away with a stellar reputation that seems to have put her almost above criticism. But you can't say that she's really led on any of the big issues for this administration or made a major mark on high strategy." And another official: "She's the first secretary who's also been a global rock star. It's allowed her to raise issues on the global agenda in a way that no one before her has been able to do."
In conclusion
While she as secretary of state, she doesn't have a 'Nixon goes to China' moment, she is viewed as overall having done a very good job at foreign relations and had a solid term. As Senator and even before, she has a solid rack of initiatives and programs to her name, quite positive and successful ones.
As Marco Rubio himself said, if this is a resume contest, Hillary Clinton wins.
Originally posted by psmith81992
And I present facts to you, where your response is akin to it's "Bush's fault".
One, I often note that Bush helped with the crash via the Tarp. You bring that up a lot when I point out a lot of the high numbers in Obama's term, even though it is literally in direct opposition to what I said.
Two, noting 'the numbers were high in his early years,' is, one, duh, and two, is not establishing causation.
It's like you're operating on a binary. "If Q isn't blaming Obama for the crash numbers... he MUST be blaming Bush!"
You can't push your opinions on to me in place of my own.
And, yea, presidents can and do stuff that have effects that last for years and years, so there is stuff that prior presidents are the cause of during Obama's term, even multiple presidents back, but you insist on trying to push that as being my view even when I'm outright saying the opposite.
That doesn't fly, psmith.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that if you can say that Bush didn't do something, that I must accept that it's Obama's fault, which, one, doesn't even make sense, two, assumes that I'm blaming Bush in the first place, and three, assumes that the former president of the united states who was around for two terms had no effect on the following president.
"You're just blaming Bush," is not a good argument, because if you're talking about, say, "Why is Iraq such a mess?", he's involved, and if we're talking about, say, the economic crash, then he may not be the cause, it's just something that happened during his watch and he had a relatively good response to, but that sure is heck doesn't make someone who didn't take office until after it started the cause. That's absurd.
Bush is not automatically involved, he is not automatically uninvolved, he did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do, and similarly, Obama is not automatically the cause of anything that happened that Bush didn't do.
Claiming I didn't provide evidence means you ignored said evidence.
Considering I repeatedly asked for articles and numbers on your 'evidence' that Obama did nothing for the first five years, and presented numbers that indicated he did, and got no numbers supporting it, even after multiple times, I'm going to have to say 'no.'
You provided your opinion. That's not the same thing. You did not back your opinions with evidence.
Here's another shot: You've said several times that Obama didn't help in his first several years.
I've noted- with charts and graphs- that the unemployment that was rising when he took office, leveled off shortly after the stimulus hit, that the stimulus is responsible for saving 3.3 million jobs according to sources I showed you, and then the jobs continued to fall consistently ever since to a tune of 3 million jobs per year.
Again, all shown with precise checkable numbers.
Indeed, These numbers, right here, covering everything from job growth to wages rising ("And job growth has been impressive: The U.S. is adding jobs at a pace of about 3 million per year."😉. The ones you assert are wrong.
You've still yet to provide evidence with what is supposed to be wrong about those numbers, and you still insist that I'm 'biased' for think Obama did well for presiding and playing a large role in a stable recovery- which I have heavily documented to you in the past. Disagreeing that that's the case is not the same as providing evidence.
So there's bias right there. You then proceeded to ignore my evidence against your claim of "Democrats don't even blame hillary for benghazi".
...?
Why are you lying about what I said? It's not like my post is going to retroactive go back and change itself to fit.
So to call you biased and an apologist is pretty accurate considering everything you choose to overlook.
Look, trying to overwrite what I said when not only am I the one you're talking to, but the original post is still right there and we can both look at, doesn't work.
Trying to use semantics to deny my proof is weak. Both parties blamed her for benghazi.
And, hello, I never said everyone of *any* party didn't blame her. I said investigations.
And the difference between 'investigations' and 'everyone' is more than a semantic argument, it's a deliberate re-write on your part, and a significant one.
I said "[Time's party's] investigations cleared her of wrongdoing." Which is, gasp, factually true, a Republican-lead investigation found the incident was preventable but there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
You took for this to mean 'all democrats don't blame her'? Really? That's not even close in either parts of the sentence. It's changing the subject I'm talking about and the specific. If you are replacing every noun in a sentence with ones that mean different things and aren't synonyms, then hey-oh, you are in the linguistic wrong.
Stop trying to misrepresent me. It doesn't work.
It's not what I said, it's not close to what I said, and it's just showing how desperate you are to try and push this bias narrative- when I refuse to actually provide examples, you'll just make one up.
How does making up an example that's not even close to what I said supposed to prove anything except that you're willing to misrepresent me?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Tell me your achievements, but you can't name any of your achievements.
Is being married and having your husband cheat on you in the oval office an achievement?
Is being taken out of a presidential race by a nomination only to have him throw you under the bus an achievement?
Honestly, Hilary has got the bad end of things, but bad happens to bad people. Look at what she does. She is corrupt.
Now tell me her achievements as Sec and Senator. Because being elected and nominated was not one, everyone knows how and why she go them.
Originally posted by Q99
One, I often note that Bush helped with the crash via the Tarp. You bring that up a lot when I point out a lot of the high numbers in Obama's term, even though it is literally in direct opposition to what I said.Two, noting 'the numbers were high in his early years,' is, one, duh, and two, is not establishing causation.
It's like you're operating on a binary. "If Q isn't blaming Obama for the crash numbers... he MUST be blaming Bush!"
You can't push your opinions on to me in place of my own.
And, yea, presidents can and do stuff that have effects that last for years and years, so there is stuff that prior presidents are the cause of during Obama's term, even multiple presidents back, but you insist on trying to push that as being my view even when I'm outright saying the opposite.
That doesn't fly, psmith.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that if you can say that Bush didn't do something, that I must accept that it's Obama's fault, which, one, doesn't even make sense, two, assumes that I'm blaming Bush in the first place, and three, assumes that the former president of the united states who was around for two terms had no effect on the following president.
"You're just blaming Bush," is not a good argument, because if you're talking about, say, "Why is Iraq such a mess?", he's involved, and if we're talking about, say, the economic crash, then he may not be the cause, it's just something that happened during his watch and he had a relatively good response to, but that sure is heck doesn't make someone who didn't take office until after it started the cause. That's absurd.
Bush is not automatically involved, he is not automatically uninvolved, he did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do, and similarly, Obama is not automatically the cause of anything that happened that Bush didn't do.
Considering I repeatedly asked for articles and numbers on your 'evidence' that Obama did nothing for the first five years, and presented numbers that indicated he did, and got no numbers supporting it, even after multiple times, I'm going to have to say 'no.'
You provided your opinion. That's not the same thing. You did not back your opinions with evidence.
Here's another shot: You've said several times that Obama didn't help in his first several years.
I've noted- with charts and graphs- that the unemployment that was rising when he took office, leveled off shortly after the stimulus hit, that the stimulus is responsible for saving 3.3 million jobs according to sources I showed you, and then the jobs continued to fall consistently ever since to a tune of 3 million jobs per year.
Again, all shown with precise checkable numbers.
Indeed, These numbers, right here, covering everything from job growth to wages rising ("And job growth has been impressive: The U.S. is adding jobs at a pace of about 3 million per year."😉. The ones you assert are wrong.
You've still yet to provide evidence with what is supposed to be wrong about those numbers, and you still insist that I'm 'biased' for think Obama did well for presiding and playing a large role in a stable recovery- which I have heavily documented to you in the past. Disagreeing that that's the case is not the same as providing evidence.
...?
Why are you lying about what I said? It's not like my post is going to retroactive go back and change itself to fit.
Look, trying to overwrite what I said when not only am I the one you're talking to, but the original post is still right there and we can both look at, doesn't work.
And, hello, I never said everyone of *any* party didn't blame her. I said investigations.
And the difference between 'investigations' and 'everyone' is more than a semantic argument, it's a deliberate re-write on your part, and a significant one.
I said "[Time's party's] investigations cleared her of wrongdoing." Which is, gasp, factually true, a Republican-lead investigation found the incident was preventable but there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
You took for this to mean 'all democrats don't blame her'? Really? That's not even close in either parts of the sentence. It's changing the subject I'm talking about and the specific. If you are replacing every noun in a sentence with ones that mean different things and aren't synonyms, then hey-oh, you are in the linguistic wrong.
Stop trying to misrepresent me. It doesn't work.
It's not what I said, it's not close to what I said, and it's just showing how desperate you are to try and push this bias narrative- when I refuse to actually provide examples, you'll just make one up.
How does making up an example that's not even close to what I said supposed to prove anything except that you're willing to misrepresent me?
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/17/16548026-obamas-first-four-years-in-office-then-vs-now?lite
Me thinks you continue to ignore evidence and cover it up by writing as long a post as possible.