Uh oh! Barack is not happy with Hillary.

[WVPATX]

White House press secretary Josh Earnest noted that the public — including Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton — has not yet seen the final draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement between the United States and 11 other nations. That has not stopped Clinton from publicly opposing it.

Clinton said during the CNN Democratic debate Tuesday that after reviewing the TPP, which she, as Secretary of State, initially and repeatedly backed as the Gold Standard of trade deals, “it didn’t meet my standards.”

 

[mneilmont]

White House press secretary Josh Earnest noted that the public — including Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton — has not yet seen the final draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement between the United States and 11 other nations. That has not stopped Clinton from publicly opposing it.

Clinton said during the CNN Democratic debate Tuesday that after reviewing the TPP, which she, as Secretary of State, initially and repeatedly backed as the Gold Standard of trade deals, “it didn’t meet my standards.”

You have got to admit that she shows a great deal of flexibility in her position on matters of the state.

 

[WVPATX]

You have got to admit that she shows a great deal of flexibility in her position on matters of the state.

I'm still trying to figure out if she or Bill is the better liar. They are both very. very good at it.

 

[bornaneer]

Don't you know Hillary? She NEVER totally commits herself so she can later change after she see's which way the winds are blowing and which are more advantageous to getting votes . Keystone and the TPP are just two examples. After she wins the nomination she will most likely flip flop again and support both.

 

[mneilmont]

I'm still trying to figure out if she or Bill is the better liar. They are both very. very good at it.

Who was it that called her a congenital liar? Pretty accurate even at the time.

 

[WVPATX]

Who was it that called her a congenital liar? Pretty accurate even at the time.

The late, great William Safire of the NY TImes.

 

[mneilmont]

Don't you know Hillary? She NEVER totally commits herself so she can later change after she see's which way the winds are blowing and which are more advantageous to getting votes . Keystone and the TPP are just two examples. After she wins the nomination she will most likely flip flop again and support both.

She will say she feels very strongly both ways. That way she doesn't have to apologize before she sees the way the wind blows.

 

[WVPATX]

She will say she feels very strongly both ways. That way she doesn't have to apologize before she sees the way the wind blows.

One of our Lib posters claimed she "looked Presidential." LMAO.

 

[mule_eer]

She will say she feels very strongly both ways. That way she doesn't have to apologize before she sees the way the wind blows.

To be fair on those issues, she was criticized for not taking a stance on Keystone for a long time. When she took a stance, it was against it. As of now, she's still against it. With regard to TPP, she supported a deal several years ago - said something like it would be the gold standard - but claims to not like the deal that was reached as she currently understands it. As of now, she hasn't flip-flopped on those 2 issues. I don't know that she won't, but she hasn't to date.

 

[mneilmont]

She will say she feels very strongly both ways. That way she doesn't have to apologize before she sees the way the wind blows.

She probably learned when she spoke on the Senate floor speaking of her support to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. She did a 180 before the troops arrived in Baghdad and opposed the invasion. At the time, I said it must be a hell of a lot more flexible being a Senator than being a President. After bombing, there is no way the President can reverse field before Saddam is removed, but many congressmen made that transition.

 

[WVPATX]

To be fair on those issues, she was criticized for not taking a stance on Keystone for a long time. When she took a stance, it was against it. As of now, she's still against it. With regard to TPP, she supported a deal several years ago - said something like it would be the gold standard - but claims to not like the deal that was reached as she currently understands it. As of now, she hasn't flip-flopped on those 2 issues. I don't know that she won't, but she hasn't to date.

She has definitely flipped on TPP. She called it the gold standard. She verbally supported the deal over 29 times over the past few years. She, as Obama noted, hasn't seen the details since they have not yet been released. She is pandering and most sensible people realize this.

As for Keystone, what does it say about a candidate that avoids taking a position until the political benefits are known. Presidential indeed.

 

[mule_eer]

One of our Lib posters claimed she "looked Presidential." LMAO.

She gave pretty sound answers, whether they were something I agreed with or not. She didn't attack wildly, and kept her composure. I would say that Chafee was the least presidential of the group - that answer about how he voted for something when he first got to Congress was pathetic. The rest, for the most part didn't throw barbs and stayed on topic mostly. This was more about definitions of where they stand on issues than a mudslinging contest. I prefer that, and I've preferred the GOP candidates who have done the same in their debates.

While I'm going on about the debate, the thing that struck me about Webb is that he sounds a lot like Sam the Eagle from The Muppets. I don't mean to imply anything negative about the guy based on that, but it cracked me up at first.

 

[mule_eer]

She has definitely flipped on TPP. She called it the gold standard. She verbally supported the deal over 29 times over the past few years. She, as Obama noted, hasn't seen the details since they have not yet been released. She is pandering and most sensible people realize this.

As for Keystone, what does it say about a candidate that avoids taking a position until the political benefits are known. Presidential indeed.

You can support the idea of something and not think that the actual implementation of it is good. I'll use the Iran nuke deal as an example. Most people aren't saying that having a nuke deal with Iran is a nonstarter, they are saying the deal we ended up with is bad. They aren't against AN Iran nuke deal, but they are against this one. That could be where HC is on TPP, and hse may know more details than some might suggest.

So she takes a while to come to a decision on Keystone, but she was knee-jerk on TPP? Make up your mind about what you want in a candidate.

 

[WVPATX]

She gave pretty sound answers, whether they were something I agreed with or not. She didn't attack wildly, and kept her composure. I would say that Chafee was the least presidential of the group - that answer about how he voted for something when he first got to Congress was pathetic. The rest, for the most part didn't throw barbs and stayed on topic mostly. This was more about definitions of where they stand on issues than a mudslinging contest. I prefer that, and I've preferred the GOP candidates who have done the same in their debates.

While I'm going on about the debate, the thing that struck me about Webb is that he sounds a lot like Sam the Eagle from The Muppets. I don't mean to imply anything negative about the guy based on that, but it cracked me up at first.

Webb is a DINO, imo. He definitely didn't belong on that stage. He is a JFK era Dem. I thought his comments about real enemies was his only good moment. He identified an unknown Viet Cong soldier while Hillary identified Republicans.

Dems are simply devoid of candidates. Very, very short bench. Not hard to look impressive against that lot. And Sanders throwing Hillary the e-mail lifeline was really, really stupid. She won't get that benefit against Republican opponents.

BTW, did you see that Hillary forwarded an e-mail that included the real name of a CIA operative in Libya? That is highly classified information that if known will get people killed.

 

[WVPATX]

You can support the idea of something and not think that the actual implementation of it is good. I'll use the Iran nuke deal as an example. Most people aren't saying that having a nuke deal with Iran is a nonstarter, they are saying the deal we ended up with is bad. They aren't against AN Iran nuke deal, but they are against this one. That could be where HC is on TPP, and hse may know more details than some might suggest.

So she takes a while to come to a decision on Keystone, but she was knee-jerk on TPP? Make up your mind about what you want in a candidate.

Give me a break. Hillary's TPP position is STRICTLY based on politics. She called it the Gold Standard and yet, after not knowing anything new, is against it. Even Obama called her out on it.

Her TPP position is to help her with unions that were aghast at her Keystone position. She took the Keystone position to appease the Greens. She is taking the TPP position to appease the unions.

 

[mule_eer]

Webb is a DINO, imo. He definitely didn't belong on that stage. He is a JFK era Dem. I thought his comments about real enemies was his only good moment. He identified an unknown Viet Cong soldier while Hillary identified Republicans.

Dems are simply devoid of candidates. Very, very short bench. Not hard to look impressive against that lot. And Sanders throwing Hillary the e-mail lifeline was really, really stupid. She won't get that benefit against Republican opponents.

BTW, did you see that Hillary forwarded an e-mail that included the real name of a CIA operative in Libya? That is highly classified information that if known will get people killed.

I'll agree that Webb doesn't stand much of a chance in the Dem primaries, and I think that's a shame. He could draw support from the middle in a general election.

Sanders is big on not throwing mud. Whether you like what he says or not, he says what he means. He's said all along that he wants this campaign to be about the issues facing the country, not name calling. He's a man of his word.

So revealing CIA operatives is bad now, or does it depend on who did it? I haven't seen anything about an email from her that did that, but I'll certainly look for it.

 

[mneilmont]

She gave pretty sound answers, whether they were something I agreed with or not. She didn't attack wildly, and kept her composure. I would say that Chafee was the least presidential of the group - that answer about how he voted for something when he first got to Congress was pathetic. The rest, for the most part didn't throw barbs and stayed on topic mostly. This was more about definitions of where they stand on issues than a mudslinging contest. I prefer that, and I've preferred the GOP candidates who have done the same in their debates.

While I'm going on about the debate, the thing that struck me about Webb is that he sounds a lot like Sam the Eagle from The Muppets. I don't mean to imply anything negative about the guy based on that, but it cracked me up at first.

You have a more positive feeling about her performance than I do. I awoke the first time at 9:30, and the next time at 11:30. I was there long enough to see a love fest among the participants. Hillary was the only one to do what she needed to continue. The other 4 should have voted "present".

 

[mule_eer]

Give me a break. Hillary's TPP position is STRICTLY based on politics. She called it the Gold Standard and yet, after not knowing anything new, is against it. Even Obama called her out on it.

Her TPP position is to help her with unions that were aghast at her Keystone position. She took the Keystone position to appease the Greens. She is taking the TPP position to appease the unions.

You may be right about why she chose to oppose the TPP, but Obama has certainly not spoken out in the same way when people have spoken in favor of TPP. The negotiations were done on 5 Oct, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has a web page up extolling all of the benefits and virtues of the deal.

 

[WVPATX]

I'll agree that Webb doesn't stand much of a chance in the Dem primaries, and I think that's a shame. He could draw support from the middle in a general election.

Sanders is big on not throwing mud. Whether you like what he says or not, he says what he means. He's said all along that he wants this campaign to be about the issues facing the country, not name calling. He's a man of his word.

So revealing CIA operatives is bad now, or does it depend on who did it? I haven't seen anything about an email from her that did that, but I'll certainly look for it.

When did I say that revealing the name of a CIA operative wasn't bad? If you're referring to Valerie Plame, the culprit was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's Deputy Secretary. So if you're angry, blame Powell.

But the two are very different. Plame's name was known and she wasn't covert at the time. Hillary forwarded that name while the operative was still in the field. She got that info from Syd the Kid Blumenthal. The guy Obama banned from State, remember him?

 

[mule_eer]

You have a more positive feeling about her performance than I do. I awoke the first time at 9:30, and the next time at 11:30. I was there long enough to see a love fest among the participants. Hillary was the only one to do what she needed to continue. The other 4 should have voted "present".

So you watched a few minutes of debate and feel qualified to talk about how the participants did? Is that because you decided how they would do before you started "watching"?

 

[mneilmont]

So you watched a few minutes of debate and feel qualified to talk about how the participants did? Is that because you decided how they would do before you started "watching"?

You are reading too much into what was said. I said nothing about my qualifications to assess the debate, but I can damned certainly assess what I saw.

Just for the hell of it, what makes you certified to be a judge of the debate(?)?

 

[mneilmont]

So you watched a few minutes of debate and feel qualified to talk about how the participants did? Is that because you decided how they would do before you started "watching"?

You are reading too much into what was said. I said nothing about my qualifications to assess the debate, but I can damned certainly assess what I saw.

Just for the hell of it, what makes you certified to be a judge of the debate(?)?

 

[WVPATX]

You are reading too much into what was said. I said nothing about my qualifications to assess the debate, but I can damned certainly assess what I saw.

Just for the hell of it, what makes you certified to be a judge of the debate(?)?

This is easily the weakest field of candidates that I have seen in my lifetime. Hillary leads but has lots and lots of issues. She is viewed negatively by the country and the two words used most often by Americans to describe her are liar and untrustworthy. She is also simply not very likable. Sanders is an avowed socialist. The other three are completely unknown to the American public and will never get any traction to become known.

Their accomplishments are very, very thin.

 

[mule_eer]

You are reading too much into what was said. I said nothing about my qualifications to assess the debate, but I can damned certainly assess what I saw.

Just for the hell of it, what makes you certified to be a judge of the debate(?)?

What qualifies me to judge the performances of the candidates in that debate? I watched the debate. You said that I had a more positive feeling about her performance than you did. How do you have any feeling for her performance if you only caught a couple of hazy minutes of debate between naps?

And as for qualifications to assess the debate, I'm a registered voter, same as you. I try to take in information about the candidates, to include the debates, then make my decisions based on that information. It's called the democratic process, and that's what we as registered voters should feel a responsibility to do. I don't care if your assessment matches mine. I don't think it necessarily should, but I think we are all "qualified" to form an opinion based on information put before us. My gripe with your assessment is that it was made without the information.

 

[mneilmont]

What qualifies me to judge the performances of the candidates in that debate? I watched the debate. You said that I had a more positive feeling about her performance than you did. How do you have any feeling for her performance if you only caught a couple of hazy minutes of debate between naps?

And as for qualifications to assess the debate, I'm a registered voter, same as you. I try to take in information about the candidates, to include the debates, then make my decisions based on that information. It's called the democratic process, and that's what we as registered voters should feel a responsibility to do. I don't care if your assessment matches mine. I don't think it necessarily should, but I think we are all "qualified" to form an opinion based on information put before us. My gripe with your assessment is that it was made without the information.

Now you can really make that assessment without knowing how much I watched before falling asleep. Think I could have fallen asleep at 11:15. You are making an assumption that you know something that I don't. I only said that I woke up at 11:30. It was boring, and I fell asleep before 11:30.

And, as far as qualifications, yes, I am a registered voter. I saw some of the thing that was offered as a debate. I was never going to vote for those participants based on prior knowledge of them and their records. What I saw in the debate only reinforced my understanding of the very weak candidates. I saw a lot of things they were going to give in an attempt to buy more votes from additional government "investment". Perhaps I fell asleep before hearing how they were going to pay for those "investment". Would you be so kind as to inform me, and many others who watched the exhibition, how they proposed paying for the give away s? I haven't heard anyone on the news programs who heard the plan. Would you inform us as to what you heard in that regard, and more importantly, that you were satisfied the expenses were paid for?

 

[dave]

I'll agree that Webb doesn't stand much of a chance in the Dem primaries, and I think that's a shame. He could draw support from the middle in a general election.

Sanders is big on not throwing mud. Whether you like what he says or not, he says what he means. He's said all along that he wants this campaign to be about the issues facing the country, not name calling. He's a man of his word.

So revealing CIA operatives is bad now, or does it depend on who did it? I haven't seen anything about an email from her that did that, but I'll certainly look for it.

Revealing cia operatives is bad no matter which state department employee does it. Hillary or Richard Armitage.

 

[WVPATX]

Revealing cia operatives is bad no matter which state department employee does it. Hillary or Richard Armitage.

I disagree a little. Armitage's revealing of Plame's CIA status while Plame was sitting in an office at Langley is different than revealing the name of a CIA operative covertly in Libya and subject to immediate death. However, I think Armitage and if Powell was involved, Powell, should both be punished.

 

[robEERt]

Revealing cia operatives is bad no matter which state department employee does it. Hillary or Richard Armitage.

I watched part of the debate last night. This morning when I woke up I took an IQ test It was 10 pts lower than the last time I took one. Watching this circus causes loss of brain cells. Beware!!!

 

[mule_eer]

Now you can really make that assessment without knowing how much I watched before falling asleep. Think I could have fallen asleep at 11:15. You are making an assumption that you know something that I don't. I only said that I woke up at 11:30. It was boring, and I fell asleep before 11:30.

And, as far as qualifications, yes, I am a registered voter. I saw some of the thing that was offered as a debate. I was never going to vote for those participants based on prior knowledge of them and their records. What I saw in the debate only reinforced my understanding of the very weak candidates. I saw a lot of things they were going to give in an attempt to buy more votes from additional government "investment". Perhaps I fell asleep before hearing how they were going to pay for those "investment". Would you be so kind as to inform me, and many others who watched the exhibition, how they proposed paying for the give away s? I haven't heard anyone on the news programs who heard the plan. Would you inform us as to what you heard in that regard, and more importantly, that you were satisfied the expenses were paid for?

You said you woke up the first time at 9:30, then later again at 11:30. It was a 2 hour debate, so you missed a fair amount unless those were really short cat naps.

These folks gave as much explanation as to how to pay for this as the GOP candidates gave for how to pay for tax cuts.

 

[mule_eer]

Revealing cia operatives is bad no matter which state department employee does it. Hillary or Richard Armitage.

No doubt. Clinton received an email from someone outside of government that named an operative. That's something that I think should be reported. I have no idea if it was.

 

[WVPATX]

No doubt. Clinton received an email from someone outside of government that named an operative. That's something that I think should be reported. I have no idea if it was.

She did more than receive an email. She forwarded that email which contained highly classified information. She did so on an unsecured server. She promised us that she neither sent nor received classified information. She very easily could have cost to his operative his life. But she didn't care. She's does what she wants and to hell with anyone else.