Hillary Clinton

hoops said:

BCC said:

hoops said:

BCC said:

hoops said:

he fact that he did this should be enough to tell you and the others that her actions were not 'nothing' ,they were something and something worth pointing out.

I hate to see your idea of exploring something in depth, if what you've been doing here for the last year and half is just pointing something out.

This has been a wide ranging discussion and seems you are trying to make a point by cherry picking a phrase. Is that what you are reduced to.

assuming your last sentence is a question - 

SHEESH.  You're the person propagating this non-eventful, uninteresting, ridiculous
and to every persons life reading this totally unimportant event into something thats been discussed ad nauseam.   Each time you've gone on about some cherry picked point of your own, for months, never ending. 

Reduced?  I've been amazed by your ability to hang in like a pit bull despite the tide of facts and pull of all of the people who have pointed out to you the many flaws in your arguments.  

'non-eventful, uninteresting, ridiculous -  totally unimportant event' 

Have you just arrived from another planet? 

Kindly point out a couple of 'flaws in my argument.

I'm sorry, your ability to navigate and prioritize may be impaired, or maybe you really are a Frank Burns type.  

I assure you even on Mars your views would be judged as harshly as they are here on MOL.

IOWs you can't point out anything. Nothing new.

mikescott said:

BCC said:

mikescott said:

BCC is persistent -- and just does not understand the issue -- and can't be objective because of his hatred of HRC.  

Same issue - point out what I don't understand. So far you have wandered all over the lot.

wandered all over the lot?  

It has been explained to you many times. -- and I don't think anyone can succeed getting someone to actually read what has been said when that person is stubborn and wearing blinders.

Yes you wandered all over the lot.

What has been explained to me or is this simply your way of dodging the question?

Someone parse this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/09/1558359/-This-is-an-actual-Trump-sentence

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist  and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians  are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

jamie said:

BCC - what would be your end game with Hillary?  What punishment would you enforce in regards to the email issue?  Jail?  Should we go back and enforce similar penalties to all politicians and government officials who have used private email services - like Rice and Powell. 

I'm not suggesting any punishment for her and as a matter of fact I accepted Comey's decision, whereas there are plenty of lawyers who did not.(I am not a lawyer}

What I have been saying is why I won't vote for her, and it involves more than e-mails.

BTW Rice didn't use e-mails and Powell was operating under different regulations. Pointing out others wrong doing doesn't excuse yours.

hoops said:

Someone parse this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/09/1558359/-This-is-an-actual-Trump-sentence

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist  and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians  are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

No problem, just point out the flaws in my argument.

LOST said:

BCC said:

I think my statement that the war against Libya was a fiasco is a pretty good idea of where I stand in that regard.

Yes, I trust the opinions of MDs, JDs, DDSs over yours. They know more than I do about their specialties.  I have seen enough of Hillary over the years to make up my own mind, even taking into account the opinion of someone who is her supporter.

You are referring to the historians and Reagan. Sorry, I didn't have time to evaluate the worth of 44 men versus each other and neither did any one on MOL. Therefor, for the 5th or 10th time, I accepted the verdict of the people who spent their life studying that problem. If you choose to accept the opinion of those on MOL that's your privilege, I hope you don't ask their advice for medical or legal matters.

No.

One may think Libya was a fiasco because of the way it was handled but still support the idea that we should have joined the action in the first place.

I have a JD. You have seen Hillary in public and filtered through the media. This person has worked with her. He is a supporter because of his personal knowledge of her and he has never before publicly supported a candidate for President.

I was not discussing the substance of the Reagan issue. I was just pointing out that you relied on experts in that regard but would not rely on the opinion of a person who actually worked with Clinton.

You "have seen enough of Hillary over the years to make up (your) own mind" but you disparage those who certainly saw plenty of Reagan over the years to make up their minds. In fact since you probably saw more of Reagan than of Hillary why would you need experts to inform your views about the former but need only your own observations to come to conclusions about the latter.

I don't think you are familiar with what happened in Libya or you wouldn't take that position

Comparing Morrell to the historians is comparing apples to oranges. Historians don't look only at the positive side.

You saw as much of Reagan as I did. Are you prepared to judge him versus Tyler - or Polk - or any of the other 41 Presidents.Neither am I

I have seen enough of Hillary to decide not to vote for her and I believe you remember my saying more than once I have only voted for 1 Republican, John Lindsey. I didn't vote for Reagan, twice, and at this point I don't need to judge Hillary against the 44, I only have to explain why I won't vote for her

hoops said:

Someone parse this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/09/1558359/-This-is-an-actual-Trump-sentence

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist  and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians  are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Forget parsing it. I want to see someone diagram that sentence.

Lost

BOTTOM LINES

• The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's
2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent
from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort
to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse,
NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but
rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of
increasing the harm to Libyans.

• The Intervention Backfired. NATO's action
magnified the conflict's duration about sixfold and its death toll at
least sevenfold, while also exacerbating human rights abuses,
humanitarian suffering, Islamic radicalism, and weapons proliferation
in Libya and its neighbors. If Libya was a "model intervention,"
then it was a model of failure.

• Three Lessons. First, beware rebel propaganda
that seeks intervention by falsely crying genocide. Second, avoid
intervening on humanitarian grounds in ways that reward rebels and
thus endanger civilians, unless the state is already targeting
noncombatants. Third, resist the tendency of humanitarian
intervention to morph into regime change, which amplifies the risk to
civilians.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html

Read the entire article. It may give you a different perspective.

In addition – Hillary was in charge of Foreign Affairs and supported our taking part, we ended with a
failed state in Libya, the fighting continues, and ISIS has a foothold there.

Trump is already hitting her on having poor judgment. This gives him more fuel for the fire

I will say that after 9-11 Qaddafi saw the potential danger of Al Quaeda to his rule and pivoted to be helpful to us and the west. We should have built on that and left him is place. 

BCC said:

No problem, just point out the flaws in my argument.

seriously?  

you dont listen or acknowledge anyones objections or arguments.  theres nothing in what you say thats compelling, so why should I bother?

about a half dozen people in another discussion posted a number of responses pointing out the flaws in the argument.  Why should any of us re-do their work?

BCC said:

jamie said:

BCC - what would be your end game with Hillary?  What punishment would you enforce in regards to the email issue?  Jail?  Should we go back and enforce similar penalties to all politicians and government officials who have used private email services - like Rice and Powell. 

What I have been saying is why I won't vote for her, and it involves more than e-mails.

So - who are you voting for and why?

.

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

As opposed to a limousine Johnny come lately pseudo-Republican with the attention span of a five year old, according to the ghost writer of his pseudo biography.  If it came down to that choice, the Boss has my vote in a second.  

BCC said:

mikescott said:

BCC said:

mikescott said:

BCC is persistent -- and just does not understand the issue -- and can't be objective because of his hatred of HRC.  

Same issue - point out what I don't understand. So far you have wandered all over the lot.

wandered all over the lot?  

It has been explained to you many times. -- and I don't think anyone can succeed getting someone to actually read what has been said when that person is stubborn and wearing blinders.

 

Yes you wandered all over the lot.

What has been explained to me or is this simply your way of dodging the question?

Explain how I have wandered all over the lot...

And re-read the hundreds of posts from many explaining to you.

Or try answering the question that has been posed to you.... who are you voting for and why instead of saying the same thing over and over about HRC.  

I believe BCC has already stated he doesn't know who he's voting for, other than not HRC or DJT. He might even stay home.

BCC said:

I don't think you are familiar with what happened in Libya or you wouldn't take that position

Comparing Morrell to the historians is comparing apples to oranges. Historians don't look only at the positive side.

You saw as much of Reagan as I did. Are you prepared to judge him versus Tyler - or Polk - or any of the other 41 Presidents.Neither am I


I have seen enough of Hillary to decide not to vote for her and I believe you remember my saying more than once I have only voted for 1 Republican, John Lindsey. I didn't vote for Reagan, twice, and at this point I don't need to judge Hillary against the 44, I only have to explain why I won't vote for her

I can be educated about Libya. I haven't made up my mind about it one way or the other. 

Morrell was Director of Central Intelligence. I'm sure he evaluated the positives and negatives before he came out strongly for Hillary. I have no reason to doubt his statement that this is the first time he has ever publicly endorsed a Presidential Candidate. Historians are not very helpful in deciding the merits of a current candidate for the Presidency. Someone like Morrell is.

I might not be able to judge Reagan in comparison to dead 19th Century Presidents without the assistance of Historians but I can judge him in comparison to other Presidents in my lifetime. And I can judge Hillary Clinton just as you have based on what I have observed but more to the point I can certainly judge Trump on that basis and I have seen enough of him to have decided that I will vote for whomever is most likely to prevent him from being elected.

bramzzoinks said:

Just what the world needs an extremely hypocritical limousine liberal. But I doubt he would want to leave his 400 acre NJ estate and his horse-set friends. 

They didn't have limousines back then but was there ever a more hypocritical liberal than Thomas Jefferson? He was exactly what the world needed on more than one occasion.

Thomas Jefferson never pretended to be a friend of the working man.  He was a patrician through and through. 

The only working people Springsteen actually interacts with are probably the ones who clean his horse's poop. 

leaving aside your monomaniacal focus on Springsteen's horse farm, and leaving aside the obvious tongue-in-cheek nature of my suggestion for a moment -- I would bet anything that a Springsteen administration would pursue a far less bellicose foreign policy than either Trump or Clinton, and would probably also nominate some pretty good SCOTUS justices. 

I bet Springsteen makes sure  as much as possible of his 400 acres qualifies as a farm for property tax purposes. 

Jon Bon Jovi appears to be much more active in philanthropy than is Springsteen. 

Here's an instructive comparison between Springsteen and Trump.  Springsteen has been as much in the limelight as an entertainer in his decades of fame as Trump has as a . . . whatever he is.  Yet I can't recall hearing or reading a word in the nature of backbiting, trash talking, recriminations etc. about what Springsteen was like as a person to work with and for.  Have we really heard anything but recriminations about Trump? 

BCC said:

jamie said:

BCC - what would be your end game with Hillary?  What punishment would you enforce in regards to the email issue?  Jail?  Should we go back and enforce similar penalties to all politicians and government officials who have used private email services - like Rice and Powell. 

I'm not suggesting any punishment for her and as a matter of fact I accepted Comey's decision, whereas there are plenty of lawyers who did not.(I am not a lawyer}

Someone's been drinking Trump wines.

bub said:

Here's an instructive comparison between Springsteen and Trump.  Springsteen has been as much in the limelight as an entertainer in his decades of fame as Trump has as a . . . whatever he is.  Yet I can't recall hearing or reading a word in the nature of backbiting, trash talking, recriminations etc. about what Springsteen was like as a person to work with and for.  Have we really heard anything but recriminations about Trump? 

The monied horse set likes to keep its affairs private. 

An honest conservative would have no trouble recognizing who the true American role model is between these two guys. The one who was born working class, worked his ass off to be good at something (other than self promotion), made money by selling something to people who knew exactly what they were getting and chose to buy it.   A number of books have been written about Springsteen but I don't recall any of the writers saying regretfully that the books should have been called "Sociopath" (Trump ghostwriter comment).

You are the only person here tying to make a comparison between Springsteen and Trump. So your comments are not relevant.

It was you who brought up the historians.. If you cannot judge Reagan in comparison to other
Presidents you cannot, as you have done, question why he has such a high rating. And you cannot use them to insist I accept Morell. That's a whole different discussion and I will leave it at that.

And you cannot use them to insist I accept Morell's 'expert' opinion . That's one man's opinion and while it is valuable it still is not the entire story. There is also the negative side he left out.

My considering not holding my nose and voting for Clinton, and considering voting for Gary Johnson is
somewhat unique only on MOL. There are 10 to 15 % of voters considering voting for a third party candidate.

That's millions of people who don't see a reason to vote for either of them.