This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Not that I am taking a position one way or the other but I think it is worth pointing something out.
Fair enough, although I interpreted that as 90% was also representative and reflected the views of the general public.
Someone should email Trump that line so he can use in the debates - it would go over great with women voters.
I think it's safe to say the FFA isn't really a true reflection of the general public.
I am sure he is always looking for new material, particularly since he can't use on Hillary the same line he did about Megan Kelly "bleeding from her whatever"
To clarify, are you going to get hung up on a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies? If so, I'm happy to amend my statement to "well, she hasn't been convicted of any
I've thought about this some and I've concluded the answer is incompetent, and as part of that you can include really bad judgement, which Obama raised in 08.
And in her entire political career of over 30 years she has not even been charged with a misdemeanor, not by one prosecutor in any jurisdiction ever - a person actually has to be charged with something to be convicted of any crime. And yes, people commit crimes all the time and aren't charged but it if Hillary is as evil and corrupt as you say and has engaged in illegal activity for decades, it strains credulity that there has not been enough evidence to even charge her with a misdemeanor.
Thanks. That works.
That's because I never have.
Thanks. That works.
Squiston -- please add to your notebook that tim's bar is "guilty of a grave crime" and that he might even be willing to overlook that if push came to shove.
Why do I have to set a bar? I believe Hillary is a good person, so all of this discussion is meaningless. If I didn't think she was a good person I never would have supported her in the first place.
I know this is old stuff but the TravelGate affair is one of the most sordid events you will ever read about in government, one longtime public servant framed (later acquitted in no time at all), documents destroyed, federal agents sent on political missions, one suicide, others fired on trumped up causes.
Of course, isn't your entire belief here based on one book (Game Change)? You despised her prior to that.
Right. And you've made it clear that literally nothing will change your mind short of being "guilty of a grave crime." Not sure whether that means "convicted of" or "charged with" and whether a "grave crime" has to be a felony or could be merely a misdemeanor, but I get your point. I'll leave it to you and squiston to parse out the details. He'll need that for his records.
Your definition of good is strange. You have admitted she is not all that honest, she stretches out the law to grey areas where she takes advantage, and she takes positions to get elected.
I didn't despise her. I was somewhat neutral. And it was based on more that that one book.
I've never made it clear that nothing will change my mind. Again you're trying to set conditions. There aren't any. If somebody made a compelling case that she's not a good person, I'd probably change my mind. But nobody has.
This is a prime example of what I was just talking about in my post to Ivan. I read about that story in a couple of different books. Hillary made some mistakes and errors in judgment and the Clinton haters immediately turned it into massive wrongdoing. So I don't find it compelling evidence of her being a bad person.
I didn't like some of the things she said during that campaign. But I can't recall disliking her. If I wrote I did then I don't remember. In any case I like her now.
timschochet is a massive proponent of "the end justifies the means". He believes that Hillary is acting for the greater good, so it doesn't matter to him how she gets there.
How can you write that off? She invented false claims about Bill Dale - the man was tried on that stuff, he lost his career on pure made up claims. Foster killed himself from the stress. Others got fired. Documents got destroyed. All so her friends could take those jobs. There is no way to view that as anything but despicable, hurtful behavior.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I assumed that when you wrote that she was worse than Cruella de Ville that you disliked her. Simple misunderstanding.
This is true of 95% of all politicians. Mencken theorized that one could not reach high office otherwise. I've read numerous biographies of Winston Churchill who is probably my favorite public figure of all time, and everything you wrote is absolutely true of him.
You keep saying that, but your posts constantly argue in favor of it. There was a post quite a while back in which you literally argued that corruption in politicians isn't important as long as they get things done. Can't remember the specific politician's name at this point.
Billy Dale is a big part of the reason I never bought into it. For a guy who supposedly lost his career, he made a new one traveling around the country going on every conservative talk show he could find, calling for Clinton's impeachment, claiming first hand knowledge about the murder of Vince Foster, and begging listeners to contribute money to his lawsuit against the Clintons which was thrown out of court.
Probably Nixon.
Ha, the guy was a whistleblower and you fault him for telling the truth to the public. Yes his career in government was ruined. I doubt his book selling did him much good. This is terrible excuse making and even your own statement does not deny what happened.
Just so we're clear...
I don't know what happened, Saints. I can tell you that Joe Conason's book completely disputes everything you just wrote about it. And I can tell you that when I used to listen to Dale talk in the 90s (he was a frequent guest on the local George Putnam show; Putnam bought into all of the anti-Clinton conspiracy theories) guy came off as sleazy and untrustworthy IMO.
No, it was a New Orleans, Detroit, or California local guy. Maybe all of the above. But you specifically argued that corruption not only wasn't a big deal, it was often necessary to get things done.
