Did anyone else notice that she cited Bill Clinton's "Achievements" as her own?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

He talk about his family, but she's not allowed to talk about hers?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Mentioning them to begin with, while being off topic, makes it perceptively implicit.

I absolutely disagree. Saying "my husband did this and I want to do it, too", is, in no way, citing his accomplishments as her own. Only that she would like to do it, too.

Trump was hounding her about Bill, so she defended him and his accomplishments.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: Plotus
If you remember, their campaign slogan when Bill ran, was that you were getting 'two for one', followed by Fleetwood Mack.

Bro I was born in 1992. I'm 24 now s sorry I dont remember lol. Although my Mom makes little comments here and there saying "I think she was calling the shots from the beginning".

It's True, and it was as far as I can remember, the first Campaign where Rock Music was used to entice. Fleetwood Mack was big at the time, though starting to get long in the tooth. Never the less to attract the younger voters, Bill was doing diddies on the Sax, and often times there was rock involved in some way, with Fleetwood Mack the primary source. They were the 'Hip' candidates.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Its psychology, BH. I didn't write the books....they exist out there. If you mention yourself in the same sentence as someone else, there is an implicit connection made.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Nickn3

And not only balance the federal budget, but create a federal budget surplus. And reduce the scale & influence of the MIC. But let's forget those, right?

Go ahead and tell us how he achieved that ? Does raiding Social Security ring a bell.........?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's not an "implicit" connection. It's a real connection. Her husband was President and she was First Lady. It's part of who she is. She has a right to talk about it.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's not an "implicit" connection. It's a real connection. Her husband was President and she was First Lady. It's part of who she is. She has a right to talk about it.

No one is saying she doesn't.

And yes, it is implicit. She mentions his achievements while talking about what she is going to do in the future. Its so implicit that it caused us to have this thread going on.

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Since you are so young...did you know the 1st lady frequently sits in the morning briefings right alongside the 1st "Husband", Vice President, Generals, Cabinet Members etc?

The former female Presidential Doctor...whose name escapes me right now ...was asked what do you do when the President wont take his meds or follow your advice? She said..."You appeal to a higher authority. The 1st Lady". That usually works.

1st ladies have a lot of one-on-one influence with the President...who for the most part...discusses issues with her up in the families living quarters. Its a known fact...want the Prez to do something? Get to the 1st Lady. They all have a lot of clout. Jackie Kennedy, Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan, Lady-Byrd Johnson, Barbra Bush, Laura Bush...

No one's closer to the President with their "opinions" about what to do about important issues...and often sits in meetings...

Additionally? Both Bill and Hillary met in college and both are attorneys...

PS> NO! Im not supporting her... or Donny

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Nickn3

And not only balance the federal budget, but create a federal budget surplus. And reduce the scale & influence of the MIC. But let's forget those, right?

Go ahead and tell us how he achieved that ? Does raiding Social Security ring a bell.........?

Nope, but drastically cutting the Department of Defense's budget, raising taxes, and (regrettably) cutting many elements of social programs like Welfare ring a bell. Want to go into more detail on your claim?

And by the way, when talking about raiding or borrowing from Social Security's surpluses, there's something you might want to take into consideration:

By law, the U.S. Treasury is required to take the surplus and, in exchange, issue interest-accruing bonds to the Social Security trust funds. The Treasury, meanwhile, uses the cash to fund government expenses, though it has to repay the bonds whenever the Social Security commissioner wants to redeem them.

www.politifact.com...

So the issue with any President "borrowing" or "raiding" from Social Security only matters if the money is never repaid. But the money can't be "repaid" until the Social Security commissioner redeems the bonds that are required to be created from any Social Security surplus. If it's a 10 year bond (which earns interest for the SSA), why would the Social Security Administration require it to be repaid prematurely?

ETA: Also, let's not forget that Clinton's 1999 State of the Union speech called for a special trust fund to not only reinvest more into Social Security as a whole, but to invest the surplus back into the Social Security fund. Here's an excerpt from the speech (at the 20:30 mark):

The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits, not to raise payroll tax rates, not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make an historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security. (Applause.)

Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.

But we must aim higher. We should put Social Security on a sound footing for the next 75 years. We should reduce poverty among elderly women, who are nearly twice as likely to be poor as our other seniors. (Applause.) And we should eliminate the limits on what seniors on Social Security can earn. (Applause.)

Now, can you tell us why this plan never happened?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Its psychology, BH. I didn't write the books....they exist out there. If you mention yourself in the same sentence as someone else, there is an implicit connection made.

I read a book about Charles Manson.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If you mention yourself in the same sentence as someone else, there is an implicit connection made.

I'm not arguing that she made no connection to her husband. Of course there's a connection. And I understand that she was outright stating that she hoped to do the same thing Bill did as regards jobs, but words MEAN things. The OP is charging that she "cited his accomplishments as her own" - like "signing trade deals".

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
I noticed that she cited some of BILL'S accomplishments as her own such as signing some of those trade deals.

When I asked for examples, the OP showed that she mentioned Bill's accomplishments on jobs, a balanced budget and incomes. Nothing about how SHE had signed any trade deals. That's BS.

Maybe you think I'm being overly literal, but words mean things and to SAY that Hillary took credit for signing trade deals is just incorrect. If we make conclusions based on implications, inferences and suggestions, we end up in a real mess.

Did she want to link his accomplishments to her? Of course! But she didn't say they were hers or that she had signed trade deals. That's just not true.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
She mentions his achievements while talking about what she is going to do in the future. Its so implicit that it caused us to have this thread going on.

The only reason this thread exists is because the OP inferred something that Hillary didn't actually say.

While it can be refuted she took credit directly for bills actions as president.

There is no denying she SHAMELESSLY PLUGGED HER BOOK!!!

I found that to be extremely DEPLORABLE!!

~meathead