He had contacts and connections that many can only dream of and huge credibility among the those whose opinions I also find credible.
To minimise the output of one of the greatest journalists of the modern age by reducing his work to the “shtick” of a one-liner merchant? Well, OK. Your opinion I guess.
Okay, so I take it that your opinion on Clinton is the one provided to you by Hitchens? No agency or anything of your own?
Are you 100% in alignment will all of his opinions? Or just the ones that you happen to agree with?
To the extent that his work was real journalism, that is, brought factual information to public light, based on credible and cited sourcing, that’s one thing.
With respect to his opinions, I don’t consider him particularly insightful. If he said something funny about someone and I already agree with that opinion, okay, give him a golden Ha-ha. So, basically, if I already agreed with him on something, fine. Otherwise. I wouldn’t rely on him to base my opinions.
What made him “great” was his skill at insulting people. It made him a colorful interview subject and amusing read. Keen wit, yes. Keen insight, not reliably. After all, this was a leftist who embraced Bush and the Iraq War.
No, as I’ve already said I have no strong opinion on Hillary Clinton. Someone asked where the idea of her entitled sense of worth was expressed. I provided Hitchens as an example of that.
I don’t understand the point of the question. If I don’t agree with him 100% on all matters (and of course I don’t) then of course I only agree with the ones I agree with. How can it possibly be otherwise?
You are welcome to your opinion. Those who know far more about him, his subjects and his abilities see him as far more than that.
No, see, that’s not what was asked. It was asked if there was a cite or quotation that demonstrated that she thought she “deserved” the office.
You replied by citing someone else’s opinion about her.
I guess maybe that’s the problem, it was assumed that you were answering the question that was asked, but instead, you chose to answer a different question than actually asked.
Similarly, you reduced @Acsenray’s posts to a single line, and used that line to claim that they were reducing Hitchen’s work.
Well, you have an extremely high opinion of him and are taking other posters to task over disagreeing with his opinion on her, so I was wondering if that meant that you agreed with everything he said.
You are basing your entire argument on the idea that his opinion is correct, and that anyone who disagrees with it is incorrect.
Either you feel that way about all his opinions, or you rather hypocritically call others out for disagreeing with the ones that you agree with.
where do I say that his opinion is correct?
You mean, you disagree with his opinion of Clinton?
I never claimed it was a citation of something she said, nor a direct quotation. I clearly stated it was comment on her character by someone of huge standing. Take that however you wish
Oh, so you are not saying that is the case, and you actually didn’t mean to use him in any sort of relevant way to this thread?
Why’d you bring it up then?
I’d have thought with such glowing compliments like, “He had contacts and connections that many can only dream of and huge credibility among the those whose opinions I also find credible.” or “one of the greatest journalists of the modern age”, or “Those who know far more about him, his subjects and his abilities see him as far more than that.” you were making an argument that his opinion should hold weight.
Instead you were just blathering incoherently.
I understand now. Thank you for letting everyone know that you have nothing useful to contribute.
I would not say that I agree with his opinion, that is not the same thing as disagreeing.
You gave it as a response to someone asking for a citation or quotation. Now, sure, it is our fault for thinking that you would answer a question with anything relevant, but I think you have done a good job of disabusing us of the notion that you had any intention or capability of doing so.
Just like this:
Could you possibly have posted a more useless post?
You are pretty pathetic, and I’m ashamed of wasting time taking you seriously.
I think the views of a well respected journalist on the character of Hillary Clinton are relevant to a discussion on the character of Hillary Clinton.
Doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with him on any given subject. It is undeniable that he is a serious writer of high pedigree and if someone is dismissing him as something far less than that I’ll absolutely put the case forward that he is worth listening to.
you don’t understand the distinction do you?
Yes, I do, it is that you refuse to answer a straight question. Just like the pathetic troll you are.
Fuck off.
what straight question have I not answered?
I hate sealions.
As I already pointed those out, and used them as examples when I explained that, pretending to not know that is just you demonstrating to everyone else that you have no interest in a good faith discussion.
You may win internet points with your friends, but what does that really get you?
Anyway, a plonk to you.
So no examples then. As per usual. Bluster and flounce.
To be clear, I don’t hate Hilary, but do dislike her, although I absolutely voted for her in 2016, and as @slicedalone put it, would continue to do so until the end of time if a rematch happened.
I dislike her for the exact same reason I disliked Bill (who I also voted for) and honestly, the majority of other politicians out there. She’s somewhat corrupt. Note the somewhat. Like many successful individuals, politicians and businesspersons, she plays fast and loose with the rules when she can. I found her somewhat lacking in charisma as well, but that’s a lot more subjective. In general though, she felt like she was campaigning exactly like a traditional old white MALE politician - which definitely felt weird when I saw all the gendered (obvious and otherwise) attacks against her.
Having said that, she’s at worst like a benign cancer. Yeah, better that there wasn’t the corruption at all, but is capable of staying bought and some consistency in messaging. May grift, but works within the bounds of deniability that had long surrounded our political caste.
Trump, by contrast, is a malignant, metastasized tumor of epic proportions. There is just no effin’ comparison between the two.
So yeah, while I dislike Hilary, it’s the exact same way I dislike Bill’s Obi-wan attempts to deflect his affair (I couldn’t care less that he had one, that’s between him and Hilary, but that he lied to us? Screw that), and all other such individuals on the large or small scale. But I’m utterly capable of choosing the lesser of evils, and will continue to do so until it becomes moot.
ETA - lesser of evils metaphorically, I don’t consider Hilary evil, just more unprincipled than I would prefer. And again, she barely even registers on a scale that has to account for the level of outright evil that Trump embodies.