Milo Yiannopoulos

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership"

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

You downplay everything. You are the only person who will not concede that she lied about coming under sniper fire. I have never, ever heard anyone else deny that she lied. It causes you to lose all credibility, because it's not reasonable to say she didn't lie (unless you think she actually believes that she got shot at, in which case you are saying she is delusional).

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

True. It was a horrible, horrible nomination. See, I can admit that. I can admit flaws, even serious flaws, in my own candidate, when the evidence is clear. And that makes one of us.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

I have never seen you agree with anyone's criticism of her, not once.

"I've said many times she has flaws "

And your list of said flaws, does not include "lied about coming under sniper fire".

Nor does it include "lied when she said Bill wasn't cheating on her, and compounded that lie by saying that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way".

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
I know you realize this, but you twist what Donald Trump says and does , while accusing others of twisting what Hillary Clinton is .
I keep it wondering what's in it for you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that what the Trump reality organization used to indicat that the person applying for the apartment was Black and to not rent to them?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

You can say the same for the lies Trump spews every day. His "secret" plan to defeat ISIS was to talk to the generals (who he said know less then he does). He just lied about his support of the Iraq invasion. It just goes on and on and on. His praise of Putin is despicable.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You can say the same for the lies Trump spews every day. His "secret" plan to defeat ISIS was to talk to the generals (who he said know less then he does). He just lied about his support of the Iraq invasion. It just goes on and on and on.

Paul, here is the thing...I have said here, many times, that Trump is a morally bankrupt narcissist. I make zero claims that he is morally superior to her. But I'm not making those claims. I don't know that anyone on this forum is making that claim. But some here, are acting as if she's as innocent as a newborn kitten.

He's an absolute clown, a buffoon, a caricature of a man. OK? I can say that out loud. Lots of conservatives are saying that. But for every single moral flaw that you can accurately attribute to him, I can do the same for her. And the hypocrisy, is that while all liberals are calling him out for being morally bankrupt (and he is), almost none of them are capable of the same honesty in evaluating her.

I don't think it's possible to be intellectually honest, and be a liberal. I really think it's impossible. Especially in terms of economics, when the math, and the observable results, tell us with zero ambiguity, that it's a disaster. But almost none of you will concede that you might be wrong, on anything. Ever. It's mind-boggling. And I'm not talking about you, I am talking more about the pundits and politicians.

When the war in Iraq was falling apart, Bush admitted that, and changed course. He implemented The Surge, and it worked.

Here in CT, our capital city of Hartford is a bankrupt, uninhabitable, sh*thole. Yet I have never, not once, heard a liberal say "well, we tried liberalism for 40 years, and clearly it's not working, let's try something else".

Liberals can never admit they are wrong. Ever. About anything.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

Not to mention the email she sent requesting the "classified "heading be removed from documents before they are sent to her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

As Secstate, she inherited a stable Iraq. When she resigned, it was in chaos.

Net value? It's debatable...and a serial liar, to boot. But if the election were today, I think it would be an electoral landslide for her.

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

And do you know why that is? Because people on my side are way more capable than people on your side, of being critical of fellow Republicans. On your side, all that matters is protecting anyone with a D after their last name. Her disapproval ratings are astronomical also, but you don't see liberals breaking ranks.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better.

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Originally Posted by spence

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

Just stop......please.....you're giving me a popsickle headache.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

Correct.

But there's always a chance Gates is lying, right? Even if we set that aside...we know that she voted for the war "with conviction", then when the war became unpopular, we know what she said to Petreus about what the Surge would do.

She was dead wrong when she said Iraq had WMDs, and she was dead wrong when she said the Surge couldn't do what Petreus said it could do (and she called him a liar, to boot). If her instincts are that bad, on what basis is she a great candidate. What is the "net value", as Spence put it, of her leadership? Iraq went completely south during her watch as Secstate, and her state department refused to increase the security of the ambassador to Libya, which turned out to be the wrong call. She claims that she didn't know what the "C" marking means on intelligence reports for Christ's sake. And whether you believe her endless, changing list of excuses or not, we know the FBI said she was "extremely careless" with sensitive information.

Trump is no all-star, either. But as I have said, most people are honest about Trumps faults and his virtues. Democrats, as a group, won't concede her baggage. because they can't ever be wrong about anything.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.

So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?