Can you explain why Hillary sucks?

[Thumpalumpacus]

To declare that "no, she knew, she's a pathological liar" - that is a slur and I don't appreciate you slurring her.

Well, it's a good fucking thing I didn't say that, now isn't it? If you want to take offense over an imagined opinion, that's your business. Have at it.

I don't think Aurora suggesting that there may be some unresolved internal conflict in you regarding women seeking power is any kind of slur.  It is a very natural thing to consider when trying to understand one another.

I take it as a slur, because it implies that either I'm sexist, or I'm so dumb that after fifty years I still don't know basic things about myself. If you want to speculate on her motives, go ahead, don't let me stop you. But I won't take being called sexist -- and that, in essence, is what she did -- without defending myself, and if you want to jump into the fray, you'd goddamned well better have something better than sticking words in my mouth that I didn't say, Whatevs.

[Whateverist]

No, it's not because she's female, and I don't appreciate your insinuation, especially considering it's based only upon a "feeling" and it's about someone you don't know and rarely interact with.

Simply because you don't agree with my emphases doesn't give you the right to slur me.

Here is a news flash: people lie to themselves all the time.  When they do, they don't always know that they're doing it.  I'm not familiar with the gunshots you refer to but it might well be a case of someone believing something false.  I just don't know.  To declare that "no, she knew, she's a pathological liar" - that is a slur and I don't appreciate you slurring her.

I don't think Aurora suggesting that there may be some unresolved internal conflict in you regarding women seeking power is any kind of slur.  It is a very natural thing to consider when trying to understand one another.

Upon further reflection ..

---

https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI

---

.. perhaps it is possible to see why people would think Hillary sucks, or at least plays fast and easy with the truth.  I guess this says more about how closely I follow political news than anything else.  So I apologize for my false equivalency in the slurring department.  Yeah, it would be nice to have someone to vote for we could like more as people.  Of course I'll still vote for her and hope for incremental improvement or at least less back sliding, but what if we could vote for E. Warren ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

The first thing to say is to remember the adage: "Actions speak order than words". Donald has rhetoric whereas Hilary has record.

I'm not here to debate the merits of the two, but I wanted to address this point of yours. Donald's rhetoric -- of racism and foreign-policy ignorance (picking a war with China? Really?) -- is far worse than Hillary's record, in my opinion, which is why I'd vote for her over him any time.

They're both shitty choices, but to act as if they're equally shitty is simply wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So I apologize for my false equivalency in the slurring department.  

I appreciate your apology, bud.

Aroura's conclusion doesn't follow from anything I've written in this thread or any other thread on this forum, for that matter. Fact is, I've voted for women, served under women in the military, reported to them as a business manager, and have intelligent, strong, and beautiful women in my life.

I don't distrust a woman who wants power any more or less than I distrust a man who wants power. But I do distrust anyone who wants power so badly they'd undergo decades of the humiliation of being publicly cuckolded. That sets my bullshit detector a-ringin'.

[Whateverist]

I don't think Aurora suggesting that there may be some unresolved internal conflict in you regarding women seeking power is any kind of slur.  It is a very natural thing to consider when trying to understand one another.

I take it as a slur, because it implies that either I'm sexist, or I'm so dumb that after fifty years I still don't know basic things about myself. If you want to speculate on her motives, go ahead, don't let me stop you. But I won't take being called sexist -- and that, in essence, is what she did -- without defending myself, and if you want to jump into the fray, you'd goddamned well better have something better than sticking words in my mouth that I didn't say, Whatevs.

While still feeling a bit taken aback by my own ignorance regarding H. Clinton, I have to say I still disagree with you on this point. Who really ever fully knows themselves? I don't consider that a completed mission in my own case and I never assume that anyone else is holding all their own cards either. I don't think it has to be intended as a slur to suggest that someone else may be missing something. I can't imagine Aurora thinks of you as a vile, sexist guy any more than I do. But I'll leave that for her to pursue if she wants to. I don't and in general, people will let you know when they don't want to explore their potential unconscious motivations with you .. and that you have done very clearly.

I confess I only went there to draw the parallel between throwing shade on Hillary. But after watching that video I can see why she is drawing so much of it. So let me apologize again for going there. I was wrong.

[Aegon]

This is from the "Occupy Democrats Logic" Facebook page. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's all true or if they're spinning it in a certain way. I was less than 6 years old when most of this happened.

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care.

Her proposed plan was so bad that many Democrats came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, on September 26, 1994, the “Hillarycare” bill was declared dead.

This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."

(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.)

Husband Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission—Lani Guanier was her selection.

After considerable backlash from prominent Democratic senators concerning Ms. Guanier's radical views, Bill Clinton withdrew her name from nomination, stating that she did not represents the civil rights views that he had championed during his campaign.

However, apparently a slow learner, husband Bill continued to allow Hillary to make more recommendations.

She chose former law partners, Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

(Is anyone wondering yet what her Supreme Court Justice appointments would be like?)

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate," the first major ethics controversy during Bill’s presidency.

Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend, Harry Thompson—but the White House Travel Office refused to comply.

She trumped up allegations of financial mismanagement and reported seven long-time White House employees to the FBI. This ruined their reputations, got them fired, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.

Eventually, most of the employees were reinstated and Clinton associates were forced out of the travel office. Only one White House employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime—the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds; a jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security.

When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense.

Let’s look at some of her more notable decisions in this regard . . .

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury, followed by his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath. (Sound familiar?)

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "mistakenly thought was hers."

So you see, the email scandal and all of her malfeasance regarding the handling of Top Secret information, not to mention the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation, are nothing new.

Hillary’s entire political career has been nothing but a web of lies, corruption and destruction in her quest for power.

Is anyone else ready to say, “Enough is enough!”?

But unfortunately, I’m sure her loyal fans will say, "What difference does it make?

[Thumpalumpacus]

While still feeling a bit taken aback by my own ignorance regarding H. Clinton, I have to say I still disagree with you on this point.  Who really ever fully knows themselves?  I don't consider that a completed mission in my own case and I never assume that anyone else is holding all their own cards either.

No, no one knows themselves fully, but I know myself a damned sight better than someone online I don't know from Adam's housecat. You're cordially invited to serch my 13000+ posts -- and she is as well -- to support any charge of sexism you may wish to lay. But let's be clear -- you are defending someone's willingness to make baseless charges against someone else. I don't think that's a hill you want to fight for.

I don't think it has to be intended as a slur to suggest that someone else may be missing something.  I can't imagine Aurora thinks of you as a vile, sexist guy any more than I do.  But I'll leave that for her to pursue if she wants to.

Again, it's not for her, you, or anyone else to define my offense. Offense is taken as well as given, and if she didn't intend to offend, that's for her to say. That doesn't mean that my offense is wrong.

 

I don't and in general, people will let you know when they don't want to explore their potential unconscious motivations with you .. and that you have done very clearly.

Bullshit. I'm happy to talk about such matters. I've talked openly about my alcoholism, and wondered about what drove me to such self-destructive behavior, and why it's still a difficult struggle for me at times ... not exactly flattering stuff there, y'know? What I'm objecting to here is some Internet asshole coming along and blowing off my opinion based on a baseless charge. ZERO evidence for it, just waving the slur around. And make no mistake: calling someone sexist is every bit as much a slur as calling someone racist, in my book.

I can't imagine your motivations for wanting to defend such behavior, but unlike you, or her, I'm not going to try to impute thought processes to you, when I have no clear evidence for them in your words. That's called giving the benefit of the doubt, and I'd like to think I've earnt some around here.

I confess I only went there to draw the parallel between throwing shade on Hillary.  But after watching that video I can see why she is drawing so much of it.  So let me apologize again for going there.  I was wrong.

I'll be honest with you, this persistent defense of baseless charges against me is much more enervating. But for what it's worth, I've already accepted your apology over that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is from the "Occupy Democrats Logic" Facebook page. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's all true or if they're spinning it in a certain way. I was less than 6 years old when most of this happened.

---

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care.

Her proposed plan was so bad that many Democrats came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, on September 26, 1994, the “Hillarycare” bill was declared dead.

This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."

(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.)

Husband Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission—Lani Guanier was her selection.

After considerable backlash from prominent Democratic senators concerning Ms. Guanier's radical views, Bill Clinton withdrew her name from nomination, stating that she did not represents the civil rights views that he had championed during his campaign.

However, apparently a slow learner, husband Bill continued to allow Hillary to make more recommendations.

She chose former law partners, Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

(Is anyone wondering yet what her Supreme Court Justice appointments would be like?)

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate," the first major ethics controversy during Bill’s presidency.

Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend, Harry Thompson—but the White House Travel Office refused to comply.

She trumped up allegations of financial mismanagement and reported seven long-time White House employees to the FBI. This ruined their reputations, got them fired, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.

Eventually, most of the employees were reinstated and Clinton associates were forced out of the travel office. Only one White House employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime—the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds; a jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security.

When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense.

Let’s look at some of her more notable decisions in this regard . . .

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury, followed by his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath. (Sound familiar?)

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "mistakenly thought was hers."

So you see, the email scandal and all of her malfeasance regarding the handling of Top Secret information, not to mention the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation, are nothing new.

Hillary’s entire political career has been nothing but a web of lies, corruption and destruction in her quest for power.

Is anyone else ready to say, “Enough is enough!”?

But unfortunately, I’m sure her loyal fans will say, "What difference does it make?

---

I'm sure that page is thoroughly vetted in order to keep bias out of the picture.

[Aegon]

This is from the "Occupy Democrats Logic" Facebook page. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's all true or if they're spinning it in a certain way. I was less than 6 years old when most of this happened.

---

---

I'm sure that page is thoroughly vetted in order to keep bias out of the picture.

I'm aware it isn't. But that doesn't mean what they're saying is wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sure that page is thoroughly vetted in order to keep bias out of the picture.

I'm aware it isn't. But that doesn't mean what they're saying is wrong.

Well, they sure got the sequence of events wrong in some cases. If I thought it important, I could go through that in detail.

You're almost always better off going with reputable sources, that way you have to do less homework yourself -- especially if your intention is simply to repost without comment, as you did here.