WWHD

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie .

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

You have it backwards. She created the evil villain not I .
She voted for going to Iraq so actually she helped get us there .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

they are on the short list of potential Countries who got the supposed hacked emails

True: Russia, China, Iran, and Israel are all reported to have accessed her illegal server. Of those four, Israel is the only one that would consider us friendly, no matter how poor relations had gotten over the past 8 years*. I would also guess that they were both grinning ear to ear (friendly nation states do spy on friendly nation states) alternating with a lot of WTFs.

Suspected of having some access and for having told US Intelligence groups: Germany, UK, and a few other countries. I would assume Israeli contacts would say the same thing off the record to US intelligence folks over a beer.

Other reports (harder to verify) have it that the entire contents of her server - more than what the the FBI and State have - are available for sale on the darkweb.





* Currently reading Bob Gates: DUTY

[Nebe]

Just call her Thunderbutt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

The intent of having a private server that you can have control over is that you have the ability to wipe away emails instantly if needed. Think of it as the ultimate in paper shredding.

Illegal? Probably not.

Hillary is a snake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The intent of having a private server that you can have control over is that you have the ability to wipe away emails instantly if needed. Think of it as the ultimate in paper shredding.

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

Right there you just summed up why it was wrong for her to have her own server.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Right there you just summed up why it was wrong for her to have her own server.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody, including Clinton has argued having her own server was the best thing to do.

Intent.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody, including Clinton has argued having her own server was the best thing to do.

Intent.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Good, savvy, leaders avoid that road. Sloppy, incompetent, careless leaders often, if not usually, take us down that road.

Whether or not she broke some law may not be as important or telling in regards to her leadership ability as is her penchant for not choosing "the best thing to do." It is telling, as well, that you couch her mishaps in euphemisms such as her not arguing that something she did "was the best thing to do." You can't seem to be able to say that her blunders were stupid, careless, incompetent, or wrong. Nor can her media lackeys. Which is why it is necessary to have a gazillion hearings on Benghazi--each hearing uncovering what you consider an insignificant new thing, but, in your estimation, not worth the money spent, nor worth even talking about.

What is most useful in having more hearings is not letting what is important continuously be swept under the rug by a compliant media. Rather, it is to disable the media's spin and inattention which wipes away any thought or memory of the really important failure in policy. To keep hammering away at the obvious incompetence in leadership which needs to be the important "old news." To, eventually, force the media to recognize the flaws in her executive ability to lead this nation. All the hearings, even though they didn't convict her of doing something illegal, have plainly, but not explicitly, pointed out that Benghazi, under her leadership, was a failure. Foreign policy decisions, under her leadership, were flawed--wrong. And there was a pattern of failure as in the Russian reset--her support and push for the ousting of Qadaffi and Assad--her assessment of the so-called Arab Spring.

Foreign policy is one the most important responsibilities of POTUS. The media touts her accomplishments, her smartness, her Progressive bona fides. But it consistently overlooks or underplays her incompetence.

Each "investigation" chips away at her manufactured expertise. The overriding incompetence needs to be squeezed out of the information lock box in which the mainstream media hides and protects it. That is the important thing in this election year. Not whether she unintentionally broke some little law.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...

Which is why you keep all communications within a secure enclave, preferably encrypted. So that, at least, that record is only being viewed by people with a "Need to know"

Originally Posted by spence

if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

The EXACT same thing can be said if you want to secure e-mails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

Not everybody knows their deleted emails R out there some place floating around and the princess(hillary) is one of them....yes people do mix work and personals, they do it on FB.... and people R sometimes fired....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Well I guess that makes everything ok then....where do I cast my vote....that there is presidential material if ever I saw it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well I guess that makes everything ok then....where do I cast my vote....that there is presidential material if ever I saw it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

Do you vet your kids babysitters with that same rationale.....meh, they all have their faults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Do you vet your kids babysitters with that same rationale.....meh, they all have their faults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What can happen if they wear condoms?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Do you vet your kids babysitters with that same rationale.....meh, they all have their faults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Our sitters certainly do have faults, doesn't disqualify them from service.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

As you said: "There are varying degrees of everything." Getting a BJ in the oval office is not as disqualifying as a pattern of failed foreign policy decisions and wrong choices such as using the personal server. Nor are getting BJ's an indication of Presidential incompetence.

The proper time to take inventory of faults is before voting, not after one has already served.

But you don't even admit she has displayed serious faults. You choose to color them by seemingly harmless euphemisms such as not "the best thing to do."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But you don't even admit she has displayed serious faults. You choose to color them by seemingly harmless euphemisms such as not "the best thing to do."

I've never said she's perfect, but I think he accomplishments far outweigh her flaws, even more so considering the alternatives.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never said she's perfect,

There you go again. The euphemistic way of hinting that she has little to no important flaw, even though her flaws are major as well as deadly and occurred while in political office.

but I think her accomplishments far outweigh her flaws,

That is ridiculous. But even if it were true, no matter if she had some nice accomplishments, her major incompetence in an important political office along with her chequered past and general untrustworthiness makes one wonder why she is the Democratic candidate. My guess is that her party and her followers want more of the same social disintegration, economic bankruptcy, and weak responses to real foreign threats to our existence.

even more so considering the alternatives.[/QUOTE]

Her demonstrated inability to properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth has no alternative who is less dangerous than she is. As flawed as Trump is, he does not have the influence in his party to lead it into the same fiscal, social, and existential chaos that Hillary and her ultra-Progressive cohorts have in the Democrat Party.

And though both he and Hilary are narcissists, his is the classic personally self-centered kind which is less dangerous than the moral narcissism of Hilary, and of Progressives in general. His narcissism allows him to be flexible in things other than himself. Hers will not allow her to bend from Progressive ideology because it has become who she is and is the driving force of her narcissism, of her self love.

And, most importantly for me, The judges she would nominate for the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, would devastate the Constitution even more than has already been done.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is ridiculous. But even if it were true, no matter if she had some nice accomplishments, her major incompetence in an important political office along with her chequered past and general untrustworthiness makes one wonder why she is the Democratic candidate. My guess is that her party and her followers want more of the same social disintegration, economic bankruptcy, and weak responses to real foreign threats to our existence.

She's the democratic candidate because she's the most qualified and has the passion to serve the people. Her resume is substantial to say the least. Nobody in positions of consequence has a perfect record, there's just too much that's out of your control, you have to look at the net...

Her demonstrated inability to properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth has no alternative who is less dangerous than she is. As flawed as Trump is, he does not have the influence in his party to lead it into the same fiscal, social, and existential chaos that Hillary and her ultra-Progressive cohorts have in the Democrat Party.

She's never been POTUS, how can you say she's failed to "properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth?'"

And though both he and Hilary are narcissists, his is the classic personally self-centered kind which is less dangerous than the moral narcissism of Hilary, and of Progressives in general. His narcissism allows him to be flexible in things other than himself. Hers will not allow her to bend from Progressive ideology because it has become who she is and is the driving for of her narcissism, of her self love.

I'm not sure narcissist is an appropriate label for Hillary, though it's a nobrainer for Trump.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite.

And, most importantly for me, The judges she would nominate for the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, would devastate the Constitution even more than has already been done.

Given Trump's tendency to chance positions on a whim I think you'd get a better result from Clinton...at least you know she'll nominate quality people.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

She's the democratic candidate because she's the most qualified

According to the Constitution, she is no more qualified than anyone else who ran in the primaries

and has the passion to serve the people.

She has a passion to control the people. And to spend more money than we have to do it. And to act as an imperial President rather than a Constitutional one.

Her resume is substantial to say the least.

Her resume is substantially substandard politically and speckled with dubious activity in and out of politics.

Nobody in positions of consequence has a perfect record, there's just too much that's out of your control, you have to look at the net...

There is the impossible "perfect," and there is the penchant for making bad decisions. She falls in the latter category. Her desire to control is too great, and the net inadequate to disastrous.


She's never been POTUS, how can you say she's failed to "properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth?'"

Her leadership as SecState was a failure in leadership for the most powerful nation on earth.

I'm not sure narcissist is an appropriate label for Hillary, though it's a nobrainer for Trump.

There are, as I pointed out and is pointed out in a new book by Simon, different kinds of narcissism. Hillary's type is the most dangerous.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite.

She has the trait of the moral narcissist.

Given Trump's tendency to chance positions on a whim I think
you'd get a better result from Clinton...at least you know she'll nominate quality people.

You would get far left, Progressive, anti-original Constitutional, leaning Judges. No matter what their "quality" is, the Constitution would be further degraded. And a more unlimited central government would be promoted. Trump has already named the kinds of Judges he would nominate. And they are far more in line with the Constitution.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite.

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

She's the democratic candidate because she's the most qualified and has the passion to serve the people.

I threw up in my mouth too

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure narcissist is an appropriate label for Hillary, though it's a nobrainer for Trump.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite..

The book I referred to regarding Hilary's narcissism is I KNOW BEST: HOW MORAL NARCISSISM IS DESTROYING OUR REPUBLIC, IF IT HASN'T ALREADY by Roger L. Simon.

Simon summarizes moral narcissism as: "Ideas and theories and ideology … that people attach themselves to to such a degree that they define themselves because they believe in those ideas. And it doesn’t matter at all if those ideas work out in the real world; it’s how those ideas work out theoretically and are approved of by the masses."

He shows how the phenomenon has grown politically, on both sides of the aisle. And he specifically pointed out in an interview that Hilary is a moral narcissist, and that Trump is not, rather that he is just the classical non-ideological narcissist. Which, in Simon's opinion, makes Trump less of a danger than Hilary because the moral narcissist identifies self with ideology. So she, being a narcissist, will not bend from that ideology which defines her no matter how evident it is that her ideas don't work. It is the steadfast love of herself as identified by her ideology, her brand of morality, that must be maintained no matter the consequences. Whereas Trump, not being a moral narcissist, not being an ideologue, can be flexible in politics and change course when it is needed.

When you say it is not the trait of a narcissist to be "a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with.." you're not understanding that a moral narcissist can be genuine and caring and responsible to those she works with, especially if they hold the same ideology, and if they help her promote her ideas. But, regardless if she's all nicey-nice, a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility toward those she worked with or not, that has no bearing on her moral narcissism. No bearing whatsoever on her steadfast loyalty to her own self-identified ideology, no matter, again, what consequences may follow.

And, besides, there are articles that show Trump to be "a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those [h]e worked with..." Does that mean he is not a narcissist. Certainly not a moral narcissist.

And further besides, there are SEVERAL articles in which she is a nasty uncaring bitch toward those she worked with.