When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@georgeob1,

Speaking of stupid and smug denials of obvious facts. Congress cut the State Departments budget for security during that time period. To blame Hillary for lack of security while ignoring that her budget is limited is one sided.

Are you talking about the story that the person that supposedly led the attack told reporters was his reason? I would say your argument is what is discredited here. The CIA gave a likely reason. That reason was repeated by members of the administration. Sounds similar to another administration when they said Iraq had WMD. Yet, we didn't investigate that lie which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and perhaps tens or hundred of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

Perhaps you should look up the context of the "At this point what difference does it make" statement. You are only showing your ignorance by repeating it as if it made your point. It only shows you don't have the facts.

You have made a lot of accusations, none of which rise to criminality since there is no law you can point to that would have been broken. Criminality requires several things. You need to reference the law. You have to show the law was broken. You have to provide evidence to support that the law was broken. You have done none of those. Once again, you only prove there is no there there.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Everyone knows you are not in danger of making an intelligent post. In case you missed it, the Pentagon and the State Department email servers were both hacked.

Keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

the Pentagon and the State Department email servers were both hacked.

So how does that make Killary innocent? You using other mishaps to justify her actions is bullshit. Aren't you tired of making excuses that no one believes?

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

How does it make the Pentagon innocent?

Keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

1 Reply

@parados,

I Read it and responded, and that particular opinion will never be proven right.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Gimme a break, George!

"Deceptive and self-serving behavior"...as a disqualifier for high office!!!!! As a disqualifier for the presidency????

Okay...so you apparently want to show scorn for me...and are pretending I am an idiot who actually thinks you think that.

Fine.

I get it.

Well you do indeed have a point there. Our standards of integrity for public office holders appear to have been in decline for some time. Moreover recent administrations, the current one in particular, have shown a disturbing authoritarian tendency to rationalize systematic public deception by the supposed virtues of their policy plans the ole "we know (better than you) what is really good for you.". I hope to see that change or at least get on a different trajectory. One must begin at the beginning.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

How does it make the Pentagon innocent?

We are not talking about the Pentagon, we are talking about a lying bitch named Killary.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Gimme a break, George!

"Deceptive and self-serving behavior"...as a disqualifier for high office!!!!! As a disqualifier for the presidency????

Okay...so you apparently want to show scorn for me...and are pretending I am an idiot who actually thinks you think that.

Fine.

I get it.

Well you do indeed have a point there. Our standards of integrity for public office holders appear to have been in decline for some time. Moreover recent administrations, the current one in particular, have shown a disturbing authoritarian tendency to rationalize systematic public deception by the supposed virtues of their policy plans the ole "we know (better than you) what is really good for you.". I hope to see that change or at least get on a different trajectory. One must begin at the beginning.

Serious question, George:

Do you see the current crop of Republican candidates as a step in that direction?

1 Reply

@parados,

Once again you demonstrate your preferencr for (rather transparent) sophistry and rhetorical evasion to discussion or argument. It's OK by me, but it makes you look rather ponderous and boring to a thinking reader.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

sophistry and rhetorical evasion to discussion or argument.

That is a nice way of saying he is full of ****. I totally agree.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Serious question, George:

Do you see the current crop of Republican candidates as a step in that direction?

A good question too.

I 'believe "the crop" is a varied lot whose members span a fairly wide range on the spectrum we're discussing. Some like Trump and Rand Paul I would put fairly low on that scale. Other declared and potential candidates (Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, possibly Marco Rubio) I would put higher.

Many of them haven't been sufficiently tested in the public eye and we know less about them. Hillary's long term presence in public matters has given her a number of significant advantages and some disadvantages as well. There's a long record of actions and statements to scrutinize, and her vulnerabilities and weaknesses have become relatively more obvious than the compoarable qualities of the other candidates over time. That's a basically unfair, but inescapable feature of a democratic system. For all it's defects however it's proven to be a far better method for selecting leaders than heredity or the secret proceedings and conspiracies of closed ruling parties and cabals. We must make our choices based on the information available in a sea of factors including personal and party policy priorities, and what we know about the character and abilities of the candidates. It's a complex and imperfect process, but I've seen none that works better over time.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

So, rather than give us evidence to support your claim of criminality, you just accuse me of evasion? The irony is rather delicious.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Serious question, George:

Do you see the current crop of Republican candidates as a step in that direction?

A good question too.

I 'believe "the crop" is a varied lot whose members span a fairly wide range on the spectrum we're discussing. Some like Trump and Rand Paul I would put fairly low on that scale. Other declared and potential candidates (Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, possibly Marco Rubio) I would put higher.

Many of them haven't been sufficiently tested in the public eye and we know less about them. Hillary's long term presence in public matters has given her a number of significant advantages and some disadvantages as well. There's a long record of actions and statements to scrutinize, and her vulnerabilities and weaknesses have become relatively more obvious than the compoarable qualities of the other candidates over time. That's a basically unfair, but inescapable feature of a democratic system. For all it's defects however it's proven to be a far better method for selecting leaders than heredity or the secret proceedings and conspiracies of closed ruling parties and cabals. We must make our choices based on the information available in a sea of factors including personal and party policy priorities, and what we know about the character and abilities of the candidates. It's a complex and imperfect process, but I've seen none that works better over time.

Okay. Some agreement.

I agree with you that the system we are using, while not perfect by a long shot...is damn good...and I have seen none, and know of none, that works better over the long run either.

And I agree that some of the current crop of Republican candidates vary on any rating scale that might be used. Not surprisingly, I would also rate JEB Bush and Marco Rubio higher than Rand Paul or Donald Trump.

But I would not rate any of them higher than Hillary Clinton in the "move to a different trajectory" or "new beginning" you mentioned.

Hillary, as a public person has her faults more on display...but when the Republican nominee is announced, that person's faults will be open also...and I would bet big bucks that none will be less into "self-serving"; "deceptive"; or "we know better than you."

These are almost required traits in anyone who has worked his/her way up to a legitimate shot at the presidency...and, although you may strongly disagree with this...are traits that were at the crux of the "success" of people like Albert Schweitzer or Mother Theresa.

People like you, Nimitz, and Halsey didn't move up the ladders you climbed without a bit of that yourselves. No shrinking violet ever became XO of a major war vessel.

Hillary Clinton is no more underhanded than people like George HW Bush or Ronald Reagan. I think she will make a fine a president as the current political climate will allow (not all that great!)...and in any case, I suspect the performance we voters expect of our leader...is beyond the capabilities of anyone currently alive.

In my opinion, eventually we will have to head in a political/economic direction despised by the vast majority of Americans...and I am looking for a leader who, at least, will make inroads into changing that attitude.

We'll see what happens. My sense of things is that we will only move in (what I consider) the right direction...when forced to do so...and then, kicking and stomping.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I agree with most of what you wrote. The only points oof difference are below;

Frank Apisa wrote:

.
But I would not rate any of them higher than Hillary Clinton in the "move to a different trajectory" or "new beginning" you mentioned.

Here we simply disagree, though I believe I can understand how you came to your conclusion.

Frank Apisa wrote:

. Hillary, as a public person has her faults more on display...but when the Republican nominee is announced, that person's faults will be open also...and I would bet big bucks that none will be less into "self-serving"; "deceptive"; or "we know better than you."

I agree that the process will expose the Republican candidate to much more scrutiny and that new stuff may emerge. I strongly doubt that any will be able to build a pile of **** to equal Hillary's in the time remaining.

Frank Apisa wrote:

. These are almost required traits in anyone who has worked his/her way up to a legitimate shot at the presidency...and, although you may strongly disagree with this...are traits that were at the crux of the "success" of people like Albert Schweitzer or Mother Theresa.

People like you, Nimitz, and Halsey didn't move up the ladders you climbed without a bit of that yourselves. No shrinking violet ever became XO of a major war vessel.

I agree that a certain amount of deception is occasionally an essential element of leadership, and that there was likely a little of Talleyrand in Schweitzer and Mother Teresa (indeed the more I read about that accomplished France diplomat, the more admrable I find him to be (he worked for the Bourbons, the post revolutionary Directorate, Robspierre, Napoleon and again the Bourbons, and saved France in the process. Napoleon famously called him "**** in a silk stocking".) There is an interestring contrast between one of the figures you mentioned (Adm. Nimitz) and another, General MacArthur, you didn't, but who played a parallel role with Nimitz in the war with Japan. MacArthur was a poseur who lied as a matter of routine and sought fame and credit for himself rather than success in the nation's undertakings. By contrast, Nimitz cannily led the real war effort, lying only when necessary, while pursuing victory and letting fame and credit go their own ways.

Frank Apisa wrote:

. Hillary Clinton is no more underhanded than people like George HW Bush or Ronald Reagan. I think she will make a fine a president as the current political climate will allow (not all that great!)...and in any case, I suspect the performance we voters expect of our leader...is beyond the capabilities of anyone currently alive.

I think Hillary would have been better than Obama, but that's not saying much. I agree she is smart and capable, but I suspect she is needlessly power-seeking, and duplicitous. Certainly far more than the others you noted. We simply disagree on that point. Lastly, you and I have different views of the future direction our national policies should take and that is a factor here as well.

I thank you for the direct and candid conversation. It's becoming a bit rare here.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, rather than give us evidence to support your claim of criminality, you just accuse me of evasion? The irony is rather delicious.

I made no claim of criminality. Indeed I have been very clear on that point. She has not been convicted of any crime though that is at least a possibility, and, as I noted, others have recently been convicted for roughly equivalent actions. My claim was the existence of sufficient indications that she appears to evade responsibility and accountability for her actions and those are disqualifiers (in my view) for the office she seeks.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I merely observed that you routinely indulge in rather transparent sophistry and evasion in oddly pedantic efforts to control a dialogue in which you only are a part, and that I find that to be tiresome and boring.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

you can not speak for Lash,

I am not speaking for Lash. She has spoken for herself and already said if its HillAry she wont vote which is a vote for the republican ticket. Thanks for the spelling lesson.

0 Replies

I don't get it. What is that - a symbolic act of rebellion, not voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination? So, if your perfect candidate doesn't get it, you would rather than vote for Hillary Clinton risk the possibility that one of the obviously deranged, Reaganomics-touting, repressive SC justice nominating, Roe V. Wade and Obamacare repealing, warmongering REPUBLICANS gets in the white house?

What the **** IS that?

2 Replies

@snood,

Common sense?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Common sense?

When down is up and 2 + 2 = horseradish, then a Democrat helping to elect a Republican as president in this upcoming election will be common sense.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

I don't get it.

No, you don't.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know