80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:17 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

It is very possible she will be indicted. Just the possibility should raise caution when reviewing this candidates qualifications.


We will see.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:34 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

I don't think we should pile on Hillary as dishonest when we are too lazy to research the issues ourselves. We are not voting for American Idol, we need representation at all levels of government.

Fair enough. However she is seeking employment as President of the country and we all have to make a judgment about her fitness for the responsibility. The standards for making thise judgments are up to each individual, and the standards for criminal conviction are not necessasarily the most appropriate here.

The reliable information out there now on the continued and knowing mishandling of highly classified materials; and on the questionable association and correlation of favorable decisions, by her as Secrtetary of State, on pending issues, ... all with large contributions to the Clinton foundation and enormous payments to her and Bill for speeches; is also well documented. Her responses on all of these matters have been incomplete, dismissive and evasive. Many have been demonstrated to have been either false or probably deliberately evasive. Much of this stuff at least appears to fit with a discerbable pattern in the older matters you listed. These things do not recommend her for the job in the eyes of many.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
None of that means she is dishonest.

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but opinions aren't the same as facts.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:38 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
I don't think we should pile on Hillary as dishonest when we are too lazy to research the issues ourselves. We are not voting for American Idol


well said
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:44 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

glitterbag wrote:



The reliable information out there now on the continued and knowing mishandling of highly classified materials; and on the questionable association and correlation of favorable decisions, by her as Secrtetary of State, on pending issues, ... all with large contributions to the Clinton foundation and enormous payments to her and Bill for speeches; is also well documented. Her responses on all of these matters have been incomplete, dismissive and evasive. Many have been demonstrated to have been either false or probably deliberately evasive. Much of this stuff at least appears to fit with a discerbable pattern in the older matters you listed. These things do not recommend her for the job in the eyes of many.




I know this is what you believe and also what you believe factual. All I'm telling you is I don't find it as compelling as some do. Now that might be because of my experience with DOD, State and Treasury. Serving under every administration since Johnson, and living thru Congressional investigations like Watergate and Iran-Contra you tend to become a tad more cautious about what passes for fact in some quarters. You just do.
Blickers
 
  4  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:45 pm
@georgeob1,
Don't look now, george, but the things you care about are not necessarily the things other people care about. Most people don't care about email servers, especially since past Secretaries of State said they used their own emails as well. Nobody cares about money to Clinton libraries, or any of that stuff. What people really care about is more like this:

Number of Full Time jobs gained while in office:
Bill Clinton......................................16 Million
Bush 41, (successor to Clinton)....... 2 Million

A happy America is a working America, and that isn't going to happen with Republicans in the White House.
glitterbag
 
  4  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 02:59 pm
@Blickers,
A healthy population also makes for a better economy. We learned at the beginning of WWI that too many men who volunteered for duty were not suitable because of poor nutrition. When people are weak and sick they can not operate as 100%.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 03:17 pm
@woiyo,
It's as likely that you will be indicted woiyo. Oh, the possibilities and probabilities of it all. Too bad facts get in the way of your beliefs.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 03:28 pm
@glitterbag,
No argument there. Each voter makes his/her own decision, and yours is entirely up to you, based on your own interpretation of these things. My point was simply that, as the information is slowly extracted from the State Department and other sources, more and more people appear to be seeing a pattern or otherwise finding issues with her candidacy, and the poll data does show a decline possibly associated with it.

Associated with that the, growing enthusiasm in some quarters for Sen. Sanders may be both a contributing cause and effect. The contrast in their respective campaign styles doesn't appear to be helping her.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 03:30 pm
@Blickers,
It's been proven thru history that democratic presidents are better for our economy.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 03:43 pm
@georgeob1,
What you believe is a pattern is simply information to me at this point. You are hopeful because you want to believe and you hope it's true. I don't feel I've heard enough to warrant an indictment let alone a conviction. You know as well as I do, that if you want to be believed, speak directly and with conviction as if you had the real facts. It's when those facts are examined and challenged the utter truth is revealed. People involved in all the rumor mongering are not going to be held responsible for misinformation. It might be true, and then again it might not. Would you sign a contract without reading the fine print? Nothing has truly
been vetted, so Im not signing until I'm convinced.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 03:48 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

woiyo wrote:

It is very possible she will be indicted. Just the possibility should raise caution when reviewing this candidates qualifications.


We will see.


I don't see real evidence that indictments are forthcoming. No reported lawyering up on the part of targets and no reported rumors from the Justice Dept. I have a hard time believing that a very politicized Justice Department would issue indictments in this case without compelling forces operating. Some believe that will occur, coming from the FBI. I don't have any direct knowledge or a strong opinion on that aspeect of the matter, but leaks or disclosures from the FBI or intelligence community would be the expected precursor. We shall see.....
parados
 
  4  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 03:54 pm
@georgeob1,
When the FBI reports they are NOT investigating someone it makes it unlikely any indictments will be forthcoming against the person not being investigated.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  5  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 04:23 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

I agree that there's a big difference between Bernie and his supporters. I've often thought that he would find some of the things his minions say and do to be wrong, and inadvisable.


Okay, but let's not paint with too broad a brush. Not every Sandernista is more concerned with smearing Hillary than with promoting Bernie.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 04:30 pm
@glitterbag,
You are prejudging my opinions and thoughts. I'm not at all hopeful on the security matters because they have great potential to be very damaging to the country, and I would prefer that none of this occured.

In that world we usually see only the tips of the icebergs. The information so far revealed by The State Department, and reviewed by the Intelligence Community IG, confirms multiple instances of Top Secret and even special compartmented intelligence as having passed through Hillary's unprotected server. I do have substantial past experience with that kind of material and the potential consequences of uncontroled disclosure. I also know that Hillary's carefully parsed words .. "no information marked as classified" were inherently deceptive as to her personal responsibilities, and now with the new information released, positively false. You can't transfer information from a special secure network to a private one without deliberate action to manually transfer the file or text. Someone did this, and it didn't occur by accident.

Only Parados knows what the Justice Department & FBI are doing (or so he says), and I have little relevant experience in that area. However the reports of ongoing FBI invedstigations or inquirys are so numerous as to be at least partly persuasive.

You appear to be saying that the appropriate standard here for voters is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is a very high standard, unique to criminal convictions. I sign contracts in business on an almost weekly basis and always see to it that the fine print is reviewed, but only rarely have information that meets that standard.

However, as I previously noted, how you evaluate this matter is entirely up to you. There is evidence, however, suggesting that many people are becoming concerned, and that is what I addressed in my post.

Here is something you wrote in an earlier post; "You can't ignore a visceral reaction to some candidates, you have to trust your gut, I don't think I will ever not shudder when I hear Ted Cruz speaking. I don't like him, but I don't have first hand knowledge of crimes he may have committed. All I can say is I don't like him.

I have a similar reaction to Cruz as well. It appears that an increasing number have an analogous reaction to Hillary and theirs is no more fact based than yours.
parados
 
  4  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 05:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Gosh... I would hate to think you didn't follow the news at all or even care about the FBI has said.

Or do you only follow Tom Delay who "knows" what is going on with the FBI from his radio broadcast booth.

Quote:
now with the new information released, positively false
No. Not really. If you squint your eyes real hard, ignore what was actually in the email and pretend it was about things not in evidence then I guess it might be false. But that's only if you ignore all the hard evidence and make up things about about the evidence you think you have.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 05:51 pm
@glitterbag,
Hillary isn't trusted because she plays fast and loose with the truth - like her husband, Mr. It Depends What You Mean By 'Is'.

Forget the peripheral topics that may be - or may not be - factual. How about what is factual? She has flipped and flopped her way through almost every issue we can cite. Evolution may be marginally plausible on a handful - marriage equality...though I don't believe it. But she worked personally and stridently on TPP - was suspiciously silent for months as Bernie railed against it for more than one reason - and when she's pushed to the wall, she starts making small noises against it. Dishonest.

Wall Street. Did you see her, during a debate, actually try to wrap herself in the 911 terrorist-bloodied flag to excuse herself for the money she rakes in from Wall Street?? It was disgusting and she was called on it as she should have been. She was humiliated for trying to cover her graft with the deaths on 911. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-wall-street-debate-215902

She went about the country and on TV, attempting to smear Bernie as a sexist because he uttered the word "shouted" as descriptive of those who make a certain argument against guns. "Shouted" = sexist? She was shouted down by the nation. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_keeps_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_now_she_is_reaching.html

I could go on for days. Not because of my hate. Because of the volumes of material Hillary created for her detractors with her lies and dirty, self-serving behavior.

Look at the polls. I'm far from the only one who judges her to be corrupt.

She and people like her are the reason Bernie Sanders' campaign breathes a breath.

glitterbag
 
  2  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 06:09 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You are prejudging my opinions and thoughts. I'm not at all hopeful on the security matters because they have great potential to be very damaging to the country, and I would prefer that none of this occured.
Quote:



Oh dear God, I don't think you or anyone would want our security breeched. We have seen far too much damage done when security is sloppy. I don't think you want Hillary to have mishandled sensitive material, but I do think you are ready to believe it happened. We just don't know. Well, I don't know.





0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 06:44 pm
@ehBeth,
Always a thumbs up for any lovely Hamburger of Beth's.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  3  
Wed 27 Jan, 2016 06:51 pm
@woiyo,
Quote:
It is very possible she will be indicted


Complete and utter horseshit. What a nerve!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.34 seconds on 11/19/2024 at 02:38:53