|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 30, 2016 23:14:53 GMT
Bill has done other stupid things and this is by far the worse, no question about that. ETA: looks like krazyscrapper edited her post.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 23:15:01 GMT
As attorneys, both Bill and the Lynch are well aware that the appearance of impropriety is every bit as bad as actual impropriety. It's hammered into lawyers from the time their students and then throughout their careers. They just don't care because in spite of everything, the Clinton supports give them a pass. Let's see, I think the same goes for those who support Trump. He lies daily. He is not fit to be president. He spews hate pretty much every day. He rips people off in business and brags about it. He wears his shady ass business acumen like a badge of honor. But... "they don't care because in spite of everything, the Trump/Republican supports give him a free pass." And then there is this. I read an article in SF Gate today where the KKK thinks this is their time to shine thanks to Trump. Oh goody. Just what this country needs white supremacists crawling out of the sewer just as this country goes from a majority of whites to a minority of whites. What possibility could go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 30, 2016 23:23:41 GMT
So then, what's the big secret? What was uncovered as dishonest, favor on their part towards them? What nefarious hanky panky has been uncovered? If the AG, a respected person has said nothing shady was going on, then what?If there was something shady going on, do you honestly expect she'd admit to it? "Hey, Bill Clinton boarded my private plane and tried to talk me into dropping the investigation into his wife..." Really? It's the part about them knowing how this would appear, even if their conversation was entirely innocent (and it probably was), that leaves me flabbergasted. That and the accusations of a right-wing conspiracy when they're questioned. What if Donald Trump's wife met privately with the judge presiding over the civil suits against Trump for coffee. What if they claimed they just talked about family stuff? Would it be so innocuous then? Again, if you don't want people to question your integrity and honesty, don't hold private, unnecessary discussions with the spouse of someone you're supposed to be investigating in an impartial manner. Don't seek out the person who is investigating your spouse to chitchat. SaveI totally get that--it does look weird. However, if this AG is respected as most have agreed, then why not believe HER? She had the power and ability to not meet up with him, for all we know it happened as she said! But it's too soon to go from 0-60 on nefarious goings on, because with no evidence to the contrary, it DOES look like the "other side" is all conspiracy theory!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 23:27:31 GMT
So then, what's the big secret? What was uncovered as dishonest, favor on their part towards them? What nefarious hanky panky has been uncovered? If the AG, a respected person has said nothing shady was going on, then what?If there was something shady going on, do you honestly expect she'd admit to it? "Hey, Bill Clinton boarded my private plane and tried to talk me into dropping the investigation into his wife..." Really? It's the part about them knowing how this would appear, even if their conversation was entirely innocent (and it probably was), that leaves me flabbergasted. That and the accusations of a right-wing conspiracy when they're questioned. What if Donald Trump's wife met privately with the judge presiding over the civil suits against Trump for coffee. What if they claimed they just talked about family stuff? Would it be so innocuous then? Again, if you don't want people to question your integrity and honesty, don't hold private, unnecessary discussions with the spouse of someone you're supposed to be investigating in an impartial manner. Don't seek out the person who is investigating your spouse to chitchat. SaveWell I doubt very much that Trump's wife knows the Judge in question and knowing what Trump has said about the judge in this case it would be highly suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 30, 2016 23:34:41 GMT
Happened to cross paths at the airport - well that pretty much discredits anything else in the article. Waiting around for someone to land and then boarding their private plane for a meeting isn't just happened to cross paths. But then the entire article is rubbish and articles like these do nothing but play to people want to believe anyone who doesn't like Hillary Clinton is an imbecile - not a way to win over any new supporters. I find when folks dismiss articles like this one the way you just did it's because it hits a little bit to close to home. But hey if that is the way you see the article then that's the way you see it. So let me see if I have this right. Bill Clinton wanted to have a conversation with Loretta Lynch so he plotted where she would be at a given time. Flew there and waited until her plane arrived. Then he went on to her plane, where there were other people besides Lynch and her husband, to talked to Lynch about his wife's investigation. In front of potential witnesses. Well ok. There is no question this was a dumb ass move by Bill and Hillary is going to pay a price for it. Bill has done other stupid things and this is by far the worse, no question about that. However if it was Bill's intent to have a conversation with Lynch and not just him wanting to say hi on a whim I have no doubt he would have found a way to have the conversation that was not in a public place with reporters around and not in front of potential witnesses. Politicians are good at planning secret meetings. In fact they excel at it. No this was a dumb ass move by Bill because he wasn't thinking. Good grief - I think your insistence on defending this dumb ass move means you're a little worried about your gal Hillary. I've met Bill Clinton - twice actually. I guarantee you he didn't sit around Phoenix for an extra hour to talk to Loretta Lynch about golf or grand babies.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 23:41:14 GMT
I find when folks dismiss articles like this one the way you just did it's because it hits a little bit to close to home. But hey if that is the way you see the article then that's the way you see it. So let me see if I have this right. Bill Clinton wanted to have a conversation with Loretta Lynch so he plotted where she would be at a given time. Flew there and waited until her plane arrived. Then he went on to her plane, where there were other people besides Lynch and her husband, to talked to Lynch about his wife's investigation. In front of potential witnesses. Well ok. There is no question this was a dumb ass move by Bill and Hillary is going to pay a price for it. Bill has done other stupid things and this is by far the worse, no question about that. However if it was Bill's intent to have a conversation with Lynch and not just him wanting to say hi on a whim I have no doubt he would have found a way to have the conversation that was not in a public place with reporters around and not in front of potential witnesses. Politicians are good at planning secret meetings. In fact they excel at it. No this was a dumb ass move by Bill because he wasn't thinking. Good grief - I think your insistence on defending this dumb as move means you're a little worried about your gal Hillary. I've met Bill Clinton - twice actually. I guarantee you he didn't sit around Phoenix for an extra hour to talk to Loretta Lynch about golf or grand babies. You met Bill Clinton twice and now you're an expert on what he does. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 30, 2016 23:44:29 GMT
Good grief - I think your insistence on defending this dumb as move means you're a little worried about your gal Hillary. I've met Bill Clinton - twice actually. I guarantee you he didn't sit around Phoenix for an extra hour to talk to Loretta Lynch about golf or grand babies. You met Bill Clinton twice and now you're an expert on what he does. Wow. Yes, because one needs to be an expert to figure out he doesn't have a whole lot of time to cool his heels waiting to chat about golf. It is only interesting in that it was for a couple of campaign functions for his wife the last go around. The amount of travel he and all the other candidates and candidate surrogates are logging right now in travel and campaign events is mind boggling. But you can continue to dismiss and insult me because you don't like the fact that I pointed out your article was less than intellectually stimulating.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 30, 2016 23:58:57 GMT
Good grief - I think your insistence on defending this dumb as move means you're a little worried about your gal Hillary. I've met Bill Clinton - twice actually. I guarantee you he didn't sit around Phoenix for an extra hour to talk to Loretta Lynch about golf or grand babies. You met Bill Clinton twice and now you're an expert on what he does. Wow. Well, how many times does one need to meet Bill Clinton in order to be an expert? She's met him twice as many times as you have (or me for that matter!). I'm going with Darcy's assessment.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jul 1, 2016 0:00:05 GMT
Happened to cross paths at the airport - well that pretty much discredits anything else in the article. Waiting around for someone to land and then boarding their private plane for a meeting isn't just happened to cross paths. But then the entire article is rubbish and articles like these do nothing but play to people want to believe anyone who doesn't like Hillary Clinton is an imbecile - not a way to win over any new supporters. I find when folks dismiss articles like this one the way you just did it's because it hits a little bit to close to home. But hey if that is the way you see the article then that's the way you see it. So let me see if I have this right. Bill Clinton wanted to have a conversation with Loretta Lynch so he plotted where she would be at a given time. Flew there and waited until her plane arrived. Then he went on to her plane, where there were other people besides Lynch and her husband, to talked to Lynch about his wife's investigation. In front of potential witnesses. Well ok. There is no question this was a dumb ass move by Bill and Hillary is going to pay a price for it. Bill has done other stupid things and this is by far the worse, no question about that. However if it was Bill's intent to have a conversation with Lynch and not just him wanting to say hi on a whim I have no doubt he would have found a way to have the conversation that was not in a public place with reporters around and not in front of potential witnesses. Politicians are good at planning secret meetings. In fact they excel at it. No this was a dumb ass move by Bill because he wasn't thinking. This is what puzzles me, because Bill is a lot of things, but he is not stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 0:09:25 GMT
It's been interesting reading some of your replies about the content in the article.
As usual, on threads like this, discussion focused on one part of the article and not the overall message Paul Waldman was writing about. But the replies did prove he is spot on.
As it was pointed in another post that in spite of all her flaws Hillary is still the better candidate. In spite of all her flaws I have no problem voting for her.
And as flawed as Hillary is she still a hell of a lot better potential president then Trump. And after watching Trump talk about trade and the "deals" he would make I found myself thinking that even if I absoulately hated Hillary I would still vote for her over that train wreck Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 0:11:00 GMT
I will be voting for Hillary in November and she has been my first choice in this incredibly sucky field of candidates. I think she is an intelligent, ambitious woman who has the experience to lead this country as compared to Trump or Sanders. However, she and her campaign need to stop doing stupid shit like this. Seriously with as many years of political experience she has as well as having a target on her back for the last 20 plus years, quit giving them ammunition. Private email server - dumbass move. Lying about sniper fire - dumbass move. Badmouthing Bill's mistresses - dumbass move but nothing no other red-blooded American woman wouldn't do. Bill meeting with the Attorney General - dumbass move. Still like her better than Trump. Her "mistakes" aren't as innocent as you and Hillary want to make them out to be. If they were, then the FBI wouldn't have launched an investigation. Private email server - putting classified information on an unauthorized server could be a violation of the same statute General Petraeus was prosecuted for or a violation of the espionage act - which only requires gross negligence to disclose information relating to national defense Wiping the server - having custody of government information and obliterating it is a crime also a possible violation of the obstruction statute Lying every step of the way - there was no classified info on my server, turned out to be a lie I turned over all of my work related emails, another lie found out I was allowed to have a private server, again not true my predecessors all did it, still not the last of the never ending lies Being investigated by the FBI for public corruption - there's a very extensive pattern of Bill Clinton's speaking fees in foreign countries rising dramatically right after his wife became Secretary of State there were speeches connected to people who had business before the State Department Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton - Hillary reeks of secrecy, scandal and failure, which she blames on a vast right wing conspiracy and brushes off as "simple mistakes just like everyone else makes" and then she wonders why the majority of Americans don't trust her.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2016 0:13:31 GMT
This is what puzzles me, because Bill is a lot of things, but he is not stupid. He is absolutely not stupid - he's also extremely adept at interpersonal skills. He's one of the most charismatic people I've ever met - and it's not just because he's a politician - I've met more than a handful of them. Even my very Republican husband concedes that he has a really amazing ability to make you feel like he actually cares about you - even in an incredibly boring meet and greet. If I was a betting woman, I'd say he wanted to re-establish a connection with Ms. Lynch. I seriously doubt he would be so heavy handed as to actually ASK for anything at all in a meeting such as that - it's way more about reminding her what a good fella he is - and he was of course the one who nominated her as the US Attorney to NY way back when......
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 0:37:11 GMT
You met Bill Clinton twice and now you're an expert on what he does. Wow. Well, how many times does one need to meet Bill Clinton in order to be an expert? She's met him twice as many times as you have (or me for that matter!). I'm going with Darcy's assessment. That is absolutely true I have never met President Clinton. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even someone who has met Bill twice, to understand if you want to have a conversation with the AG about the investigation on your wife you don't do it in a public place with reporters around in front of potential witnesses. Loretta Lynch has always had a good reputation and there is no reason to believe she would put her hard earned reputation at risk to lie about what happened on that plane. My guess is she wished someone would have slammed the plane's door in Bill's face but when that didn't happened she made the best of a bad situation. So without some of those other people around to say otherwise there is no reason to believe Loretta Lynch lied about what happened on that plane. Unless Darcy thinks just because she met Bill twice she also knows if Loretta Lynch is lying. Boy I would be suitably impressed if Darcy claimed that. It's comments like you have been making, as a former Sanders supporter, proves not only is Paul Waldman's correct about Republicans but right about some Democrats or independents leaning left as well.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2016 0:52:05 GMT
I don't think Loretta Lynch is lying - she said they PRIMARILY talked about social niceties - quite the lawyer isn't she.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 0:58:54 GMT
He is absolutely not stupid - he's also extremely adept at interpersonal skills. He's one of the most charismatic people I've ever met - and it's not just because he's a politician - I've met more than a handful of them. Even my very Republican husband concedes that he has a really amazing ability to make you feel like he actually cares about you - even in an incredibly boring meet and greet. If I was a betting woman, I'd say he wanted to re-establish a connection with Ms. Lynch.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 1:10:15 GMT
You met Bill Clinton twice and now you're an expert on what he does. Wow. Yes, because one needs to be an expert to figure out he doesn't have a whole lot of time to cool his heels waiting to chat about golf. It is only interesting in that it was for a couple of campaign functions for his wife the last go around. The amount of travel he and all the other candidates and candidate surrogates are logging right now in travel and campaign events is mind boggling. But you can continue to dismiss and insult me because you don't like the fact that I pointed out your article was less than intellectually stimulating. This is the problem I have. There is no question these guys are flying all over the place. There are not enough hours in the day. It doesn't take an "expert" to understand that. But you have no idea, other then what you are assuming, on why Clinton was still at that airport. No idea at all. And there is absolutely no reason to believe Loretta Lynch would lie. None at all. And even if you did believe she would lie there were the other people that were around them when they had the conversation. Think what you want about Clinton but even he knows the more people who know the "secret" the sooner it gets out. The very fact there were other people on the plane around them during their conversation is reason alone to believe Loretta Lynch is not lying. And if you don't like being insulted or dismissed then quite being condescending. You did it twice first with "your know it all attitude" in explaining you knew what Bill Clinton would do because you met him twice and above in your explanation of the travel time and moving folks around in a campaign because the general we aren't smart enough to see that for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2016 1:16:43 GMT
Yes, because one needs to be an expert to figure out he doesn't have a whole lot of time to cool his heels waiting to chat about golf. It is only interesting in that it was for a couple of campaign functions for his wife the last go around. The amount of travel he and all the other candidates and candidate surrogates are logging right now in travel and campaign events is mind boggling. But you can continue to dismiss and insult me because you don't like the fact that I pointed out your article was less than intellectually stimulating. This is the problem I have. There is no question these guys are flying all over the place. There are not enough hours in the day. It doesn't take an "expert" to understand that. But you have no idea, other then what you are assuming, on why Clinton was still at that airport. No idea at all. And there is absolutely no reason to believe Loretta Lynch would lie. None at all. And even if you did believe she would lie there were the other people that were around them when they had the conversation. Think what you want about Clinton but even he knows the more people who know the "secret" the sooner it gets out. The very fact there were other people on the plane around them during their conversation is reason alone to believe Loretta Lynch is not lying. And if you don't like being insulted or dismissed then quite being condescending. You did it twice first with "your know it all attitude" in explaining you knew what Bill Clinton would do because you met him twice and above in your explanation of the travel time and moving folks around in a campaign because the general we aren't smart enough to see that for ourselves. Ah - now who's overly sensitive.... I'm so sorry you're feeling belittled. You post a hack article insulting people who don't like Hillary Clinton that contained NO substance. Don't be so surprised that it didn't evolve into an illuminating thread about the awesomeness of your candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 1:17:11 GMT
Bill has done other stupid things and this is by far the worse, no question about that. ETA: looks like krazyscrapper edited her post. In what why did I edit my post? I haven't made any changes to any of my posts on this thread. Please enlighten.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jul 1, 2016 1:21:27 GMT
ETA: looks like krazyscrapper edited her post. In what why did I edit my post? I haven't made any changes to any of my posts on this thread. Please enlighten. I thought you had, I overlooked it.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2016 1:24:56 GMT
Yes, because one needs to be an expert to figure out he doesn't have a whole lot of time to cool his heels waiting to chat about golf. It is only interesting in that it was for a couple of campaign functions for his wife the last go around. The amount of travel he and all the other candidates and candidate surrogates are logging right now in travel and campaign events is mind boggling. But you can continue to dismiss and insult me because you don't like the fact that I pointed out your article was less than intellectually stimulating. This is the problem I have. There is no question these guys are flying all over the place. There are not enough hours in the day. It doesn't take an "expert" to understand that. But you have no idea, other then what you are assuming, on why Clinton was still at that airport. No idea at all. And there is absolutely no reason to believe Loretta Lynch would lie. None at all. And even if you did believe she would lie there were the other people that were around them when they had the conversation. Think what you want about Clinton but even he knows the more people who know the "secret" the sooner it gets out. The very fact there were other people on the plane around them during their conversation is reason alone to believe Loretta Lynch is not lying. And if you don't like being insulted or dismissed then quite being condescending. You did it twice first with "your know it all attitude" in explaining you knew what Bill Clinton would do because you met him twice and above in your explanation of the travel time and moving folks around in a campaign because the general we aren't smart enough to see that for ourselves. Not that it's any comfort, but I agree with you, and most of the people on this thread weren't going to vote for her anyway. It's worth keeping in mind that you won't change their minds, as they won't change yours. I think that most of us who follow politics have made up our minds. It's the undecided voters who are up for grabs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 1:48:07 GMT
It's the undecided voters who are up for grabs. Yes, and the heavy-handed, insulting and condescending approach isn't going to win your (general you) candidate any more votes. It's beyond irritating when someone on either side of the aisle starts parroting the kind of crap that was in that article in the OP. Both parties suck. They both work for the same corporations and lobbyists. We're screwed no matter who wins.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 1:51:41 GMT
Ah - now who's overly sensitive.... I'm so sorry you're feeling belittled. You post a hack article insulting people who don't like Hillary Clinton that contained NO substance. Don't be so surprised that it didn't evolve into an illuminating thread about the awesomeness of your candidate. Not overly sensitive I just believe every action has a reaction. Your words (actions) generated my response (reaction) which you didn't like. But let me ask you a question. If you expressed an opinion and someone responded by saying "well I met that person twice so I know how they would behave" in all honesty what you think about that person's comment? I mean really. I understand it's neat to meet a current or former president. Years ago a former client of mine had a chance to meet President Clinton when he was in SF and happened to be jogging on the Marina. When he told me about he said while he wasn't a fan of President Clinton he was glad to get the chance to shake the hand of a sitting president. So it's neat. However to tell someone that because they met President Clinton twice they know what President Clinton would do is a bit presumptuous and somewhat condescending. Whether its intended to sound that way or not. Forgive me for pointing out the obvious. Paul Waldman expressed his opinion, based on his observations, with which I agree based on my observations. And many of the replies on this thread proves that Paul Waldman knows of what he speaks.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jul 1, 2016 1:52:15 GMT
I will be voting for Hillary in November and she has been my first choice in this incredibly sucky field of candidates. I think she is an intelligent, ambitious woman who has the experience to lead this country as compared to Trump or Sanders. However, she and her campaign need to stop doing stupid shit like this. Seriously with as many years of political experience she has as well as having a target on her back for the last 20 plus years, quit giving them ammunition. Private email server - dumbass move. Lying about sniper fire - dumbass move. Badmouthing Bill's mistresses - dumbass move but nothing no other red-blooded American woman wouldn't do. Bill meeting with the Attorney General - dumbass move. Still like her better than Trump. Her "mistakes" aren't as innocent as you and Hillary want to make them out to be. If they were, then the FBI wouldn't have launched an investigation. Private email server - putting classified information on an unauthorized server could be a violation of the same statute General Petraeus was prosecuted for or a violation of the espionage act - which only requires gross negligence to disclose information relating to national defense Wiping the server - having custody of government information and obliterating it is a crime also a possible violation of the obstruction statute Lying every step of the way - there was no classified info on my server, turned out to be a lie I turned over all of my work related emails, another lie found out I was allowed to have a private server, again not true my predecessors all did it, still not the last of the never ending lies Being investigated by the FBI for public corruption - there's a very extensive pattern of Bill Clinton's speaking fees in foreign countries rising dramatically right after his wife became Secretary of State there were speeches connected to people who had business before the State Department Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton - Hillary reeks of secrecy, scandal and failure, which she blames on a vast right wing conspiracy and brushes off as "simple mistakes just like everyone else makes" and then she wonders why the majority of Americans don't trust her. Pretty sure I didn't make out anything to be more innocent than it is. She has made some colossally stupid decisions based on both her political savvy and intelligence. And it's not that I don't care, it's that FOR ME, she is still the better choice than Sanders or Trump. Period. If the Republicans had put forward a moderate candidate who didn't seem to think they were far superior to women and minorities and who could stay the hell out of my marriage and uterus then perhaps Hillary wouldn't get my vote. But no the choice they gave me was an orange buffoon who can't seem to stop insulting women, minorities and our allies long enough for me to even listen to his plans for governing. So I'm sticking with Hillary, warts and all, because she at least has a clue how the federal government works.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 1:59:00 GMT
And many of the replies on this thread proves that Paul Waldman knows of what he speaks. No they don't. They prove that a few people agree that they think Hillary is lesser of two horrible evils.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 2:04:47 GMT
I totally get that--it does look weird. However, if this AG is respected as most have agreed, then why not believe HER? She had the power and ability to not meet up with him, for all we know it happened as she said! But it's too soon to go from 0-60 on nefarious goings on, because with no evidence to the contrary, it DOES look like the "other side" is all conspiracy theory! Just because someone is respected doesn't mean they won't lie if the need arises. Bill Clinton was respected until he lied under oath, ya know? I'm absolutely not saying Lynch is lying. But I'm also not going to say, well if she said it happened this way, then it's automatically true because other people say she's respectable. Bill Clinton, OTOH, does have a reputation for lying and misleading people deliberately. I can absolutely see why people would question him meeting with the AG while his wife is under investigation. So the trust issue really isn't about Lynch, IMO. It's Bill, and he's given people good reason to distrust him.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 2:19:20 GMT
Well I doubt very much that Trump's wife knows the Judge in question and knowing what Trump has said about the judge in this case it would be highly suspicious. Knowing the judge isn't the issue. Privately meeting with the person investigating your spouse is a serious lapse in judgment. Both parties should have understood that. And I still stand by my assertion that if Trump's wife had done something similar, the people dismissing Bill's lapse in judgment as Jedi mind tricks would be screaming about conflict of interest, payoffs, you name it. It's the way the game is played.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2016 2:19:31 GMT
Ah - now who's overly sensitive.... I'm so sorry you're feeling belittled. You post a hack article insulting people who don't like Hillary Clinton that contained NO substance. Don't be so surprised that it didn't evolve into an illuminating thread about the awesomeness of your candidate. Not overly sensitive I just believe every action has a reaction. Your words (actions) generated my response (reaction) which you didn't like. But let me ask you a question. If you expressed an opinion and someone responded by saying "well I met that person twice so I know how they would behave" in all honesty what you think about that person's comment? I mean really. I understand it's neat to meet a current or former president. Years ago a former client of mine had a chance to meet President Clinton when he was in SF and happened to be jogging on the Marina. When he told me about he said while he wasn't a fan of President Clinton he was glad to get the chance to shake the hand of a sitting president. So it's neat. However to tell someone that because they met President Clinton twice they know what President Clinton would do is a bit presumptuous and somewhat condescending. Whether its intended to sound that way or not. Forgive me for pointing out the obvious. Paul Waldman expressed his opinion, based on his observations, with which I agree based on my observations. And many of the replies on this thread proves that Paul Waldman knows of what he speaks. You should have just stopped with every action has a reaction. You posted a sarcastic, rude article. If you can't at least acknowledge that fact, which was the actual CONTENT of my initial comment - which clearly you have forgotten: and then fail to acknowledge the fact that YOU started the personal insults - but clearly the fact that I mentioned meeting the former president is oh so condescending to you - grow up.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 1:35:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 2:30:03 GMT
Her "mistakes" aren't as innocent as you and Hillary want to make them out to be. If they were, then the FBI wouldn't have launched an investigation. Private email server - putting classified information on an unauthorized server could be a violation of the same statute General Petraeus was prosecuted for or a violation of the espionage act - which only requires gross negligence to disclose information relating to national defense Wiping the server - having custody of government information and obliterating it is a crime also a possible violation of the obstruction statute Lying every step of the way - there was no classified info on my server, turned out to be a lie I turned over all of my work related emails, another lie found out I was allowed to have a private server, again not true my predecessors all did it, still not the last of the never ending lies Being investigated by the FBI for public corruption - there's a very extensive pattern of Bill Clinton's speaking fees in foreign countries rising dramatically right after his wife became Secretary of State there were speeches connected to people who had business before the State Department Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton - Hillary reeks of secrecy, scandal and failure, which she blames on a vast right wing conspiracy and brushes off as "simple mistakes just like everyone else makes" and then she wonders why the majority of Americans don't trust her. Pretty sure I didn't make out anything to be more innocent than it is. She has made some colossally stupid decisions based on both her political savvy and intelligence. And it's not that I don't care, it's that FOR ME, she is still the better choice than Sanders or Trump. Period. That you chose to point out one of her more harmless lies, characterized her server situation as nothing more than a dumbass move and chose something she did that any spouse of a cheater might do, is what led me to believe that you were pointing out that she is more innocent than the facts show. Sorry that I got that wrong. I agree with you here. I'm not trying to change your mind, given the choices I can respect your decision. I was just making the point that Hillary is just as much a lying, corrupt, racist, sleaze bag as Trump. She's just more sneaky about it.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jul 1, 2016 5:02:48 GMT
Her "mistakes" aren't as innocent as you and Hillary want to make them out to be. If they were, then the FBI wouldn't have launched an investigation. Private email server - putting classified information on an unauthorized server could be a violation of the same statute General Petraeus was prosecuted for or a violation of the espionage act - which only requires gross negligence to disclose information relating to national defense Wiping the server - having custody of government information and obliterating it is a crime also a possible violation of the obstruction statute Lying every step of the way - there was no classified info on my server, turned out to be a lie I turned over all of my work related emails, another lie found out I was allowed to have a private server, again not true my predecessors all did it, still not the last of the never ending lies Being investigated by the FBI for public corruption - there's a very extensive pattern of Bill Clinton's speaking fees in foreign countries rising dramatically right after his wife became Secretary of State there were speeches connected to people who had business before the State Department Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton - Hillary reeks of secrecy, scandal and failure, which she blames on a vast right wing conspiracy and brushes off as "simple mistakes just like everyone else makes" and then she wonders why the majority of Americans don't trust her. Pretty sure I didn't make out anything to be more innocent than it is. She has made some colossally stupid decisions based on both her political savvy and intelligence. And it's not that I don't care, it's that FOR ME, she is still the better choice than Sanders or Trump. Period. If the Republicans had put forward a moderate candidate who didn't seem to think they were far superior to women and minorities and who could stay the hell out of my marriage and uterus then perhaps Hillary wouldn't get my vote. But no the choice they gave me was an orange buffoon who can't seem to stop insulting women, minorities and our allies long enough for me to even listen to his plans for governing. So I'm sticking with Hillary, warts and all, because she at least has a clue how the federal government works. My sentiments exactly.
|
|
smginaz Suzy
Pearl Clutcher
Je suis desole.
Posts: 2,606
Jun 26, 2014 17:27:30 GMT
|
Post by smginaz Suzy on Jul 1, 2016 6:01:29 GMT
If I were drinking Diet Coke, I would have snorted it all over the keyboard. Does she even speak?
|
|