Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)(back)

Israel section

Ok, I saw a few contradictions/mistakes in the israel section so I would like someone to edit/rewrite/fix it.

1: We have a reference to how the UN didn't find anything condemning when we have another page on this wiki about how ineffective the UN is.

2: In the letter quoted A:Thatd easily countered with a quote about a Palestinian who supports Israel (see son of Hamas leader). B: It says "women and children," it doesn't make crimes against men any less bad and we can't keep this without being sexist.^{— Unsigned, by: Potpie / talk / contribs} 05:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gene McCarthy

This sentence makes no sense:

• she left the GOP for good in 1968, after Richard Nixon won the presidential nomination against Hillary's preferred anti-war Democratic candidate of Eugene McCarthy,

(a) McCarthy was a Democrat, (b) Nixon did not win the GOP nomination against a Democrat; (c) McCarthy was long out of the Democratic race after Robert Kennedy entered.

Hillary's disembling here is obvious: she could not say she worked for or supported the two late comers to the anti-war movement, Bobby Kennedy or George McGovern in May, June, and July of 1968 because she was already working in the office of Nixon's Defense Secretary, Melvin Laird. In the 90s and as Senator to establish leftist bona fidas with liberals and anti-war movement veterans she claims she supported or worked for Gene McCarthy in Feb & March of 1968. McCarthy defeated President Johnson in the primaries. But McCarthy's campaign was over with as soon as Bobby Kennedy entered at the same time she got the job in DC with Laird. Her 'work' or 'support' of McCarthy was probably only limited to discussions with fellow McCarthy classmates and activists at Wellsley.

Furthermore, McCarthy's civil rights positions played no part whatsoever in his anti-war campaign, even the WP article states his absense from the Senate to prevent a Southern fillibuster against civil rights while out campaigning against the war was a contributing factor to sinking his campaign. IOW, Gene McCarthy was pandering to the same Southern Democrat bigots Barry Goldwater and George Wallace were. The myth the civil rights movement and anti-war movements of the 1960s were intertwined from the beginning is historical revisionism made up out of whole cloth in the Clinton era of the 1990s. Blacks in the 60s and 70s and beyond and took advantage of affirmative action programs offered by the military, and many looked askance upon the antiwar movement as competing for attention away from their cause. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!.} 20:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As much as it pains me, Rob's right. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

To the extent she supported Gene McCarthy, she opposed Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam war, as Goldwater and Nixon did. The parallel is today, she is critical of Obama's handling of Syria. Melvin Laird himself says Hillary Clinton helped him in a speech about budgetary restraints and burden sharing with NATO in the summer of 1968, an issue she can point to as experience now to counter Trump, and bring about reforms and a strategic vision later. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a good point about McCarthy. However, judging by your essay, you are treating this as some sort of magic bullet which proves that Hillary is a deep cover Republican. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Deep cover conservative acting on her own, yes. Republican, no. And yes, she did break with Nixon at some point,as many if not most Republicans did. But her narative would have us believe she never supported Nixon, despite the fact her first job on Capital Hill was with Nixon's Defense Secretary who says she helped him on speech outlining what became Nixon's policy of Vietnamization and relations with NATO, and her ongoing relationship with Kissinger and his organization. Her efforts to distance herself from Nixon over the past 30 years I can only describe as pathetic.

The one good thing that would come out of Hillary's second term would be a thorough rehabilitation of both Nixon & Goldwater's reputations, which we see already beginning to take form. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DNC 2008

The article is very comprehensive, but a touch unreadable. It would be a good idea to split the Obama v. Clinton stuff and move it to a new article, similar to the 2016 Democratic Nomination. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Silver?

It's more longer than the silver Bernie Sanders article. ClickerClock 10:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but $hillary's Bernie Bro supporters will never let it be silver. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I must caution you that just because it is longer does not mean it is as good or better in general. In this particular case, however, I think it is generally well-written despite minor errors and room for improvement here and there. So yes, I support your proposal. Nerd271 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should hold off on that until December, at the earliest. This is a skeleton of what the post-election article would look like. Plutoniumboss (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This header is way too long

We can convey the exact same information with about half the language. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And it's a little, uh, blatant in its partisanship. I've been working on it over the past few days, and I plan to continue. Also, don't take this personally, but you could be a little less confrontational about getting somebody to notice your post. You could also probably be a little less confrontational in general. It'd make things more pleasant for everybody. B) talk 20:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an unnecessary red link in the intro of this page

The "Goldman Sachs" page exists. "Goldman-Sachs" page doesn't exist. So please, somebody remove that hyphen and put it right.--Lord Nox (talk)

Thanks. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it repeatedly, got reverted each time. What a useless bunch of protoplasm. Plutoniumboss (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton pedophile ring (yes really)

I've been seeing his around recently from news sites. Here is a link to the emails in question. The linked article details on their code phrases in the emails. The fuck? Given the fact that the sender is called “podesta” and is talking about kids and pizza in a conversation leads me to believe they are pedos and not people who really like pizza. Should this be added? —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You can, but please bear in mind that Pizzagate implicates nearly every politician not named "Donald Trump". They won the election by a bee's dick, so this is a useful cudgel to beat the Democrats with. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What you people fail to realize

It's time to wake up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

B9 e-mail

Okay, so what is the deal with the B9 e-mail thing?204.11.142.106 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump still feels that Hillary needs to apologize more

A great exercise in JAQing off. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

They both lost and should get over it. Nerd271 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

But her emails. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is laden with libel. Did an alt-right invader write this?

Most of the "concerns" raised in the article are either just concern trolling from alt-right Nazis or outright falsehoods made up by the Trump campaign. I think the authors ought to be ashamed of themselves. People like you are the reason why she lost. TheRationalAtheist (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your statements are meaningless if you can't provide support for your arguments. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph exemplifies what I mean:

While there is quite a bit of nonsense in circulation regarding Clinton, there do exist serious issues which cause many to distrust her. Even as politicians go, Clinton's apparent willingness to act out of political expediency alone is stunning. She is suspiciously close to a few financial industry bigwigs; Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, for instance, hired Clinton for at least one private speaking appearance. Even among Democrats, there exists serious tension over her presidential bid. Many in anti-establishment, grassroots, or otherwise left-leaning company within the party have expressed serious dissatisfaction with the grasp she and other oligarchs have on its reins.

It does nothing but poison the well. There is only one source, and the source is on a claim that is absolutely conspiratorial and no rational person would even think about twice. You have to be Alex-Jones-level insane to make those connections from the Goldman Sachs garbage. TheRationalAtheist (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that HuffPo isn't exactly the best source for it, but I guess I'll dig the Internet for other possible sources before we can have confidence to remove at least the phrase on Llyod Blankfein (as Snopes apparently debunked a supposed "leaked" private speech that involved Blankfein). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hillary sue for libel? What a joke. nobs 16:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Clinton Should Have Destroyed Her Phones Better

So sez WiRED, who point out that HRC's handling of sensitive data was not really all that obfuscatory, but rather, quite careless even. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Clinton's record for political expediency....

... is actually quite well documented in the text of the rest of the article. There is no reason to add a {{fact}} template to the lead section. Repeated attempts to do so are both pointless, and appear to be consistent with the persistent attempts to whitewash this loser. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Foundations

Is no one going to mention the fact she took money from her foundation for her daughters wedding?--Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 23:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Because they didn't do so according to theWashington PostAriel31459 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Israel" section

Am I seeing ghosts or has this been written by someone who bears a grudge against either Clinton, Israel or both? Evil Zionist (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)