teachercd Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol Could it be that all of them were wrong and guilty? Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I think what Kanpp was doing was stating it is possible to be cynical about all the candidates and still think the email thing is a stupid non-issue. I'm assuming he thinks she's the least bad choice at this point. I think I'll borrow a lukewarm defense of her from Todd n Tyler: "They're both wrong, but she's wrong at least within the normal parameters." -Unnamed Washington Republican 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. 2 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Clinton is a female democratic version of Richard Nixon Trump is, well, Trump. Cartoonish and a bull in a china shop, especially on foreign policy. (See what I did there?) Trump is an orange version of SNLs Tommy Flanagan (the pathological Liar) http://www.hulu.com/watch/10387 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal. Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe. But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is. 2 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that. 1 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that. Well written JJ - I agree with everything you said. What gets stuck in my craw however, are the lies that are being spewed and then believed by the simple minded folks who are unable or who choose not to think for themselves; weigh the lessor of two evils, sort through the truth from the made up stuff, research a candidate's overall history and make an educated decision. Anybody who depends on Trump to educate them about Hilary or vice versa (or their respective news stations) and votes based on the rhetoric they hear from their candidate is a fool. And we seem to have a boatload of them right now. Shame on us, the US should be better than that - think what image of normal this sets for younger people who as far as they know, this is the sort of candidate and the sort of campaigns that the US has. Scrutiny - yes, it's expected and I think anyone who puts their name in the hat to run anticipates having to deal with it. But some of what's going on this year is just too much. The name calling, the immature twitter comments, the flippant disregard for other humans, the absolute made up on the spot lies. Why would any young person today live through this and say, "yeah, President is a job I want to strive for someday" or what middle aged person says, "yeah, I think my skeletons are not real bad, and I've got a tough skin, don't care about my family getting taken down, maybe I'll run in 4 years". It's no wonder we have who we have to choose from today - who would want to go through all this and to get THAT job. It's no longer a respected position, at least by Americans - it's not a job that anybody can honestly look at and say, "I think I can get things done". It's a sad, sad time for America. 5 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted May 27, 2016 Author Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that. I don't agree with you about Obama but I agree with the above. I really don't want to vote for Clinton :/ Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Clinton is a female democratic version of Richard Nixon Trump is, well, Trump. Cartoonish and a bull in a china shop, especially on foreign policy. (See what I did there?) Yes, this has been brought up before that Hillary is like Tricky Dick but even more corrupt. He managed to win in 1968, I just don't see Hillary winning this year. I don't really know anybody that likes her or is excited to vote for her. Disagree about corruption, but it's a pretty good comp. They're both paranoid as hell. But Nixon was, from what I understand, an effective, if extremely unlikable president. Of course, he had his flaws-- his foreign policy was way too hawkish for my tastes, and of course, Watergate-- but he seemed like what he accomplished domestically was effective. I could be totally wrong, FWIW, as I don't have historical perspective here. I would take a disliked but respected and effective President Clinton. I'm excited to keep Trump the hell away from the Whitehouse and by extension, vote for Clinton. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 That's sickening... You and I will just have to learn to come to terms with the fact that we'll cancel each other out. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that. Well written JJ - I agree with everything you said. What gets stuck in my craw however, are the lies that are being spewed and then believed by the simple minded folks who are unable or who choose not to think for themselves; weigh the lessor of two evils, sort through the truth from the made up stuff, research a candidate's overall history and make an educated decision. Anybody who depends on Trump to educate them about Hilary or vice versa (or their respective news stations) and votes based on the rhetoric they hear from their candidate is a fool. And we seem to have a boatload of them right now. Shame on us, the US should be better than that - think what image of normal this sets for younger people who as far as they know, this is the sort of candidate and the sort of campaigns that the US has. Scrutiny - yes, it's expected and I think anyone who puts their name in the hat to run anticipates having to deal with it. But some of what's going on this year is just too much. The name calling, the immature twitter comments, the flippant disregard for other humans, the absolute made up on the spot lies. Why would any young person today live through this and say, "yeah, President is a job I want to strive for someday" or what middle aged person says, "yeah, I think my skeletons are not real bad, and I've got a tough skin, don't care about my family getting taken down, maybe I'll run in 4 years". It's no wonder we have who we have to choose from today - who would want to go through all this and to get THAT job. It's no longer a respected position, at least by Americans - it's not a job that anybody can honestly look at and say, "I think I can get things done". It's a sad, sad time for America. I agree totally. And, as you pointed out, the current and recent past is making it less and less likely for decent qualified people to seek the office. Not that I am even remotely qualified but I sure wouldn't want the job knowing what I'd have to go through to get it. A sad time indeed, with no silver lining in view. And Moiraine- I've just never and likely will never be a fan of Obama's. I will admit that his spell as POTUS has not been as bad as I anticipated but I also hold him accountable for much of the divisiveness, especially racial tensions, in this country. I had originally some hope that he would be a unifying force......I've given up on that hope long ago. And no, I am under no delusion that he has been the biggest problem in this area. I realize the obstruction he has received from congress and the blatant racism exhibited by too many in this country have been a larger problem. I had hoped that he would've been the bigger man on these issues but he wasn't. Also I can't really get beyond his arrogance and narcissism. Just a couple pet peeves of mine I guess. I can see how some people sort of like him. I'm just not one of them. Link to comment
AFhusker Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right? Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun? Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto.... Wait. Don't answer that. Trump 2016. lol I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal. Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe. But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is. It is a big deal, anyone who has worked for the government knows this. The Clinton's think that laws are for common people, but not for them. Both of them should have been in jail a long time ago for various scandals. The 83 page report that came out yesterday is very damning because it isn't coming from the republicans and it isn't a conspiracy. It was from the IG who was appointed by Kerry, and therefore from the Obama administration. That is why this will stick and if they find any Benghazi info on there that will seal her fate. Even if they don't, she has been lying to everyone (no surprise there). Here's some info on how what she did is different than anyone else no matter how she tries to spin it, http://www.thedailysheeple.com/could-email-gate-be-hillary-clintons-political-undoing_032015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997193/Hillary-s-email-gate-linked-whistle-blower-s-description-State-Department-boiler-room-operation-set-hide-documents-Benghazi.html http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/ 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts