JHM did you watch the whole thing? There's a difference between not supporting gay marriage when nobody did and supporting it now for sure, but there's a lot of hypocrisy and outright lies here too.

Yup.

I'm always flabbergasted how America values "consistency" so highly from its politicians. "Consistency" is just a positive way of saying "rigid".

... and after I post my comment, IZ's comment appears, and he makes a good point. Sometimes being "rigid" is a good thing. (e.g. support for gay marriage)

Ugh. I wish this site had a way to delete dumb posts. Oh well.

It's OK, I can act as stars mediator.

But in response to JHM's first post, I think this is as much about the fact that she flat out denies having held her old opinions (which on one hand I can understand why she would chose to do so to avoid being accused of flip-flopping on stuff but on the other hand, how could she think she could get away with it in 2016?). I haven't watched all of it yet but the crux of the video so far seems to be not just that she took some less-than-progressive positions in the past but that when asked about them she straight up lied.

FUCK

You're both brainwashed idiots.

What do you think of NAFTA, Johnny Holmes?

What a silly question, John loves NAMBLA!

yeah, that's one thing he hasn't flip flopped on.

That Guy, which of us are brainwashed idiots? I've kind of lost the thread here.

JHM and Anaxagoras either didn't watch the video or didn't see anything that they allowed to rattle their view of Hilary.
Then they said a lot of dumb.

>>JHM and Anaxagoras either didn't watch the video or didn't see anything that they allowed to rattle their view of Hilary.
Then they said a lot of dumb.

Somebody took decades of public statements and edited it down to thirteen minutes, with a very clear intent. OF COURSE it's horsehit! I hope for your sake that you're being willfully ignorant, because I hate to think that you could be so easily manipulated against your will.

Five stars for the sheer furious justification from JHM. At this point you can all but see the flecks of blood in his spittle.

>>But in response to JHM's first post, I think this is as much about the fact that she flat out denies having held her old opinions (which on one hand I can understand why she would chose to do so to avoid being accused of flip-flopping on stuff but on the other hand, how could she think she could get away with it in 2016?). I haven't watched all of it yet but the crux of the video so far seems to be not just that she took some less-than-progressive positions in the past but that when asked about them she straight up lied.

I don't really care, but straight up wilful lying is really hard to prove when you're asking someone about something they said years ago, and you've got a free hand to choose which version of the earlier statement you put in your video.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hilary held some less-than-progressive positions when she was as senator during the Bush administration. I would expect a good politician to adjust her positions based on what can actually be accomplished.

If I was going to court, I wouldn't necessarily look for the most honest lawyer. I'd look for the smartest lawyer. Hillary Clinton is a master politician, and the world champion at deflecting vicious, unprincipled attacks. And that's what I'm looking for because if another Democrat wins, YOU KNOW that's going to happen.

They call it "politics as usual", but it's really politics as always. I want someone who can can play the game. It's not idealistic, but I'm not going to take any lessons about cynicism from anyone who is passing around
skeevy attack videos.

I want a president who isn't going to lie about climate change or made up reasons for going to war. There may be other things I need my president to be honest about, but they haven't come up yet.

I'm gratified that Bernie is doing well, but i hope he isn't the nominee. If he is nominated, though, I'll change MY position in a New York heartbeat!

>>Five stars for the sheer furious justification from JHM. At this point you can all but see the flecks of blood in his spittle.

I could never live up to your lurid fantasies, Hazel, but I have to admit that for about fifteen minutes I was taking serious umbrage. Also, I can seldom resist taking a whack at thatguy, always hanging out there like a big dumb pinata.

I agree that people ought to evolve; 15 years ago my parents (who are both voting for Hillary and around the same age) were the same with their stance towards gay marriage; that was just the way things were, especially for that generation. And since then, they, like Hillary, have embraced the concept. And that's a good thing!

But adjusting your politics "on what can be accomplished" can be a problem: take George Wallace, who opposed the KKK and was endorsed by the NAACP. Once he realized this wasn't working, well, he flipped the script like none of that had ever happened and we all know the rest. Not comparing the two politicians by any stretch of the imagination, but that's what can potentially happen with that logic.

(but speaking of civil rights, she worked for Goldwater in '64, who voted against the civil rights act ok I'll shut up now)..

I would oppose George Wallace, but for other reasons.

In 1964, Hillary was 17. My aunt, who is now a lesbian in Massachusetts, and super liberal, was around the same age, and also supported Goldwater. She hates it when I remind her.

"That guy
JHM and Anaxagoras either didn't watch the video or didn't see anything that they allowed to rattle their view of Hilary.
Then they said a lot of dumb."

That makes sense. I'm pretty confident I'm not brainwashed.

JHM, I don't disagree with you about pragmatism.

I don't want a president who lies about corporate donations

I don't want a president whose chief financial advisor is one of the key people behind pushing through the financial sector deregulations during her husband's time in office that led directly to the 2008 financial crisis.


But I'd take her over Ted "the chosen one whose presidency is a bid to immanentize the eschaton through the creation of a Christian theocracy" Cruz, of course.

Sorry, misspoke there, despite his important role in her campaign, John Podesta is not her chief financial advisor.


Also want to clarify that when I say "deregulating" I'm not saying "repeal of Glass Steagall" because it wasn't repealed, just significantly weakened. The whole "Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall" line is ubiquitous but it's at best an oversimplification. Even people DEFENDING the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act seem to think Glass-Steagall was repealed.

http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-t he-glass-steagall-act-120/

Yeah both my parents (who are exactly Hillary's age) worked for Goldwater as well.. I remember when I was a kid my dad showed me his "AUH2O" button (get it) and they're not ashamed to admit it; it'd be grasping at really low-hanging fruit if Sanders brought up what they were both doing in '64, and I don't think he will..

Since you brought it up, you know who actually pushed the Civil Rights Act through congress, right? It was Lyndon Balls Johnson, an old school wheeler-dealer politician if ever there was one.

I really like Bernie Sanders. If she's elected, I hope Hillary Clinton takes a lesson from Barak, and gives Bernie a prominent place in her administration, and if Bernie is nominated, I'm all in.

But I can't reconcile the Bernie Sanders we all love, the IM SICK OF THOSE DAMN EMAILS guy, with this kind of attack video. I don't think he'd go for it, and if this video was about him, I don't think Hillary Clinton would go for it. Maybe I'm being naive, but what I know for sure is that I wouldn't go for it. Also, I think you and me and Bernie and Hilary can all agree that what we want most of all is to not have the live through a Ted Cruz administration.

so hillary's not a liar because she reminds of jhm of his aunt.

So did Gene Simmons

That he did. I dunno, I just don't get it. It'd be like wanting to fuck Hillary to me. Also insufferable pillow talk.

I'm into Brooke Gladstone, from NPR's on the Media. Also, did you ever get a look at Sylvia Poggioli? She's a little bit past her prime, but so am I!

this is all so gross

But for who's evil?

Hillary's.

Yeah it's kind of weird that Brian Williams lost all credibility (and his job) for his similar story about the RPG, when he probably made it up because, well, half of the news is Entertainment anyway, whereas Clinton's lies about the snipers and running for cover, in that or any other context, could spark an international incident, which is much worse than just telling a tall tale.

While reporters are expected to tell the truth, I think people expect politicians to lie, especially the Clintons. (half of republicans in the 90's think they killed Vince Foster)

Brian still has a job...at MSNBC. He just doesn't really have a career anymore.

That being said, I think the sniper story would stand on its own as a republican attack ad in a general election.

Ah, NBC did give him a job! Yeah the News is expected to tell the truth, but with so much competition you've gotta ham it up a little bit to make viewers believe that you're that close to where the bombs are going off even if it's a bit of an illusion. That's "ACTION NEWS" 101.

As for politicians though, imagine if Joe Q President went into Russia and said something similar, that Russian sniper rifles were on him. Putin would deny it and unless one of them fessed up, that's a big potential clusterfuck.

Okay JHM, you're on: find or produce a similar video on Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Both have "flip-flopped" plenty of times, both have Republican opponents as eager to take them down as they are to take down Hillary. Prove your case and find it.

I honestly don't see how that would prove my case, and I'm not sure anyone would bother with Bush or Rubio, since neither is a real contender. Anyway, you have vastly overestimated my need to prove my case.

"I'm sorry Hazelnut. You're completely right and I couldn't bring myself to admit it." - JHM

Five stars for Hazelnut.

"Falsifiability is a liability to the rhetoric that you throw at me and it is plain and clear you pulled this out your rear and you had no idear that it was dumb (bump bump bump bum)."

Five stars for reminding me of that song, it has been ages.

Hazelnut, who are you... REALLY...

Yeah John Popper man! #Bluestraveller #truth

(sorry) :)

SMOOTH MOVE. I'LL bet Hazel can just see the flecks of blood in my spittle right now

Isn't Hillary a little old for you, John? She really doesn't seem like your type, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

I draw the line at Helen Mirren, who is currently 70. Hillary Clinton is 68, which is younger than Helen Mirren, and therefore is not too old for me. Bernie Sanders is 74, and is therefore too old for me.

Helen Mirren is both a lot hotter, and a lot more deserving of your knightly protection, than Madame "LOLRape" Clinton over there.

Incidentally, has Clinton ever "changed her mind" about how funny it is to destroy a 12 year-old rape victim in court?

Last I heard, this was one of the few issues - along with her love of war, her ideological commitment to authoritarian collectivism, or her support for the global finance industry - on which she has stayed the course and refused to "flip-flop". But maybe she quietly retconned it, or maybe she hasn't updated her thinking on the matter because she KNOWS that any admission of intellectual growth on her part would be TWISTED by those EVIL REPUGS, somehow used to make her look like the bad guy?