I'll just repost this
http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/
That is why I am running for President of the United States.Here, on Roosevelt Island, I believe we have a continuing rendezvous with destiny. Each American and the country we cherish.
I’m running to make our economy work for you and for every American.
[...]
She doesn’t expect anything to come easy. But she did ask me: What more can be done so it isn’t quite so hard for families like hers?
I want to be her champion and your champion.
If you’ll give me the chance, I’ll wage and win Four Fights for you.
The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it.
The middle class needs more growth and more fairness. Growth and fairness go together. For lasting prosperity, you can’t have one without the other.
[...]
Now, the second fight is to strengthen America’s families, because when our families are strong, America is strong.
And today’s families face new and unique pressures. Parents need more support and flexibility to do their job at work and at home.
I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days.
I believe you should receive your work schedule with enough notice to arrange childcare or take college courses to get ahead.
I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety.
[...]
So we have a third fight: to harness all of America’s power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity.
No other country on Earth is better positioned to thrive in the 21st century. No other country is better equipped to meet traditional threats from countries like Russia, North Korea, and Iran – and to deal with the rise of new powers like China.
No other country is better prepared to meet emerging threats from cyber attacks, transnational terror networks like ISIS, and diseases that spread across oceans and continents.
As your President, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe.
[...]
And we all know that in order to be strong in the world, though, we first have to be strong at home. That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.
We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.
We need Justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections.
If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.
So, one may think this is empty, political rhetoric, but she does talk about why she wants to be president, and what she wants to do as president from her first speech launching her campaign.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'll just repost thishttp://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/
So, one may think this is empty, political rhetoric, but she does talk about why she wants to be president, and what she wants to do as president from her first speech launching her campaign.
Yep. It turns out people come out and say why they're running for president.
Time-ImmemorialSo you agree, Hilary has failed at everything from White Water to Benghazi.
Nope. Heck, why do you even try on the Benghazi thing? It just makes you look bad and desparate, trying to attack on something where she was repeatedly found to have done no wrongdoing by your own party.
It also makes you look desperate to jump subjects off of what I said in order to make a weak attack.
I know you don't like Hillary, but trying to leap to everything as an attack makes it look like you don't actually have any real, solid attacks, just throwing stuff at the wall without rhyme or reason and hoping it sticks.
Nope. Heck, why do you even try on the Benghazi thing? It just makes you look bad and desparate, trying to attack on something where she was repeatedly found to have done no wrongdoing by your own party.
No offense since we all know TI is biased and emotional but you frequently come across as a Hilary/Obama apologist.
Re: Re: Why does Hilary want to be President.
Originally posted by Q99
Why does Trump? No-one knows other than "He wants to be President." He's offered much less substance than his competitors of either party. He has no stance other than "I'm rich and think I should be in charge, and will leverage my mixed business record to do so."Jeb? "His brother and father were."
Carson? "He's a brain surgeon."
What are they running on?
And yadda yadda.
Turns out if you want to, you can use that sort of vague phrasing on anyone. Reducing people to soundbites is easy.
Originally posted by psmith81992
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/10/democrats-biggest-blame-shifter-hillary-clinton/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/No offense since we all know TI is biased and emotional but you frequently come across as a Hilary/Obama apologist.
Look, if you're accusing me of being an apologist for stuff that even Republican investigates agree does not include the wrongdoing that many try to accuse her of, that really makes me question your bias.
While it is possible for her to have done something, what she did do was 'use the same security setup that multiple prior administrations have used and the US has used for a long time.' Could things have been done better? Yes, and she admitted it, and accepted blame because it's under her watch, and everyone agrees on that, myself included. I am in no way saying that's not the case- and btw, this flies right in the face of the statement of your first linked opinion piece there above deflecting blame, since, well, she took the blame for the stuff she was actually responsible for.
Are the attempts to blow it up into Hillary ignoring an attack and yadda yadda all the other accusations completely blown up? Also yes. At the end of the day, the security was handled on a level much lower than hers and was a problem that went back some time, and no decision she made on that day could've changed things.
I don't buy your 'you must blame Hillary/Obama for everything they're accused of else you're an apologist,' POV. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you have to buy in to all the attacks, and it doesn't mean that someone defending them is in the wrong in doing so.
If people make up a whole lot of exaggerated or flat-BS attacks, then yes, of course people are gonna defend them a lot, the attacks are exaggerated or even complete BS! Trying to paint someone as wrong for doing that is just another attack tactic.
You dont buy into the blaming Hilary/Obama, but I have seen you buy into blame Bush. While Bush does deserve blame, as does anyone else, he is still blamed 7 years later.
You remain critical of him, while dismissing Obama/Hilary faults.
The purpose I made the thread was to really understand why she wants to be president. I believe as well as 100 million other people she is not trust worthy and she has a record to prove it. I would be happy to hear arguments on what her record of success, the senate seat was given to her, and Obama gave her secretary to take her out of the last election with the promise he would support her in this one, which he has not. He has her under investigation.
Now that is not attacking her, that is the facts.
That doesn't show bias though. It's perfectly reasonable to blame Bush for things he caused that still affect us, and not give Obama blame for things he didn't cause or that are exaggerated. There's no need to give 50-50 blame to the two, one was worse than the other.
Also, I don't buy that you made this thread in good faith, since you dismissed and ignored any posts that point out why she says she wants to be president or her what she stands for and her track record.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That doesn't show bias though. It's perfectly reasonable to blame Bush for things he caused that still affect us, and not give Obama blame for things he didn't cause or that are exaggerated. There's no need to give 50-50 blame to the two, one was worse than the other.
Exactly, you don't parcel out how much blame everyone has to get, you look at what specifically they did and you only give credit or blame for things that they've got responsibility for, and in proportion to how much they did.
Now, there's still that two people can view in different lights, like one person can count ACA as a positive and another a negative, but in a good deal of cases, the person most at cause is known, so credit can be assigned and then one can personally rate that. Someone can have the exact view of what a person did as another person, but those two judge it quite qualitatively different. Like, I give positive credit to Bush for the TARP. The Tea Party gave Bush negative credit to the same thing- neither me nor a Tea Party person is misrepresenting that Bush signed and supported it, we just weigh it different.
Psmith, I don't really buy into his saying 'apologist' seriously, because he doesn't count 'unemployment numbers stop going up exactly when Obama's policies start, start going down before long, never stop going down,' as something Obama should be given credit for. So he's unreliable in the credit game- his unwillingness to give credit even for the most blatant stuff makes him shaky.
Time, well, he'll always side with the Republicans and is open about it. We'll both qualitatively judge the same actions way different, and he also has a tendency to exaggerate minor bad things into major ones.
I don't buy your 'you must blame Hillary/Obama for everything they're accused of else you're an apologist,' POV. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you have to buy in to all the attacks, and it doesn't mean that someone defending them is in the wrong in doing so.
Psmith, I don't really buy into his saying 'apologist' seriously, because he doesn't count 'unemployment numbers stop going up exactly when Obama's policies start, start going down before long, never stop going down,' as something Obama should be given credit for. So he's unreliable in the credit game- his unwillingness to give credit even for the most blatant stuff makes him shaky.