I think it’s far more likely she did it out of convenience and the thought it was no big deal. Other high-ranking officials were doing it before her and have done it since.
It was a minor issue that got blown up into a huge controversy by her political opponents.
Yep.
I truly do not understand how there is any equivalency between the two, nor do I see how Hillary is a “horrible” or “execrable” person.
Norm McDonald called her a bitch over and over again-How much more evidence do you need?
A very good person who honestly desired to make a positive impact on the country and on the world, in ways that I’d agree are positive, albeit not every single one. Who in many ways did. And a smart person.
Horrible campaigner though.
She seems pretty standard. She probably got into politics decades ago for altruistic reasons as well as being a driven individual. Decades in politics turns you into the type of person who forgets what they actually believe in, and solidifies them as a political animal. She’s not a bad person, but the political persona is tiresome.
Trump, on the other hand, got into politics for corrupt purposes and got more corrupt once in office. He’s a bad person.
I don’t agree that blindboyard’s reasons actually indicate she is evil or bad. A case could be made that these decisions were morally just - especially in the case of Assad - even if the outcome was not what we desired. That is a debate that can be - and has been - held elsewhere.
What is relevant to this thread is that blindboyard was willing to provide actual reasons for disliking Hillary based on decisions she did, in fact, make. Even if one disagrees with his conclusions, this is still miles ahead of most people I know who refer to discredited conspiracy theories or cannot provide any substantive reason at all. (Eg People who just don’t like her personality)
I think Hillary honestly had the good of America in mind. You may not agree with her definition of good, but she tried. She may be a bit Machiavellian, and a bit self-ambitious, but her goals were for America.
Whereas I think Trump only has the good of Donald J. Trump in mind, and everything he does is corrupt at the root, both his agenda and his methods.
I don’t vote for someone because they are “a good person”. That’s to vague of a description, and close to immaterial. I vote for someone because I believe they can do the job they are running for, and do it in a way that I believe is beneficial.
There are some limitations to this, for me. I wouldn’t vote for Hitler, even if I believed he would support the same things I would.
I don’t have to LIKE a politician that I vote for, but I do have to not hate them. I have to respect them enough to be willing to trust them to lead.
I think Hillary is a terrible person. I’m cynical about politics in general but I don’t believe that all politicians are awful. I believe that Bernie Sanders is genuinely compassionate towards poor people and thinks that his policies would help them. He has some good ideas, and some bad ones that would harm the people he wants to help. But I don’t see how anyone can question that he’s a true believer in this regard.
Hillary, by contrast, is an opportunistic snake with no principles that she wouldn’t sacrifice for money or power. As exhibit A, we need only observe that she’s remained married to a serial sex predator. If she actually cared about women’s rights, she would obviously have ditched Bill somewhere around the third or fourth serious allegation of rape or assault.
To name a few other points among many:
[ul]
[li]Besides the foreign policy decisions already mentioned, she voted for the Iraq War, for the Patriot Act, and for endless big increases in the military budget. She was never a leader on anti-war or anti-torture issues. After 9/11, she obviously thought that being gung ho for the military-industrial complex would serve her career interests best.[/li][li]Terrible record on free speech and civil liberties issues. Claiming to protect our dear little children, she supported numerous unconstitutional restrictions on speech.[/li][li]She was against gay marriage for almost her entire career, then flip-flopped when it became convenient.[/li][li]She generally supported mass incarceration policies, many of which were put in place by Bill, and never showed any real interest in addressing that problem.[/li][/ul]
Most importantly, she is a relatively competent person. And, while there is no “good” criteria defined, I don’t believe she is evil.
People who resort to dualism don’t have enough grey matter to create a grey area.
A sports psychologist once told me that all top athletes are either sociopaths or psychopaths and that the same is true for successful businessmen. I think it’s safe to assume he forgot about politicians. It takes a certain mentality and a special skill set to get to the top. Whatever your definition of good is, mother Theresa would never make it past the primaries.
So no, I don’t believe Clinton is (all) good. I am however convinced that Trump is a fat, dumbass, big-hat-no-cattle, nepotistic, self-enriching, incompetent megalomaniac and ugly too. It was never a choice between two evils. It was business-as-usual or let’s-give-the-village-idiot-a-chance.
Let’s remember that Hillary is not really a career politician. Bill is, but she didn’t really get involved in politics directly until he was in the White House. They are the first presidential example of the more or less equally matched couple, which is a lot more common these days than it was before. Hillary did policy not the standard First Lady charitable stuff.
Whatever her flaws as Secretary of State, she was a lot better than Trump’s first pick.
I wonder how much Hillary hatred comes from those who see her as an uppity woman, who should have known her place and just baked cookies.
You can be a “good person” and be a lousy politician, or vice versa. I don’t think Hilary’s a great person, but I think she’d make a better president than Trump, even though I’m not that enthused about her.
I waffled, largely because I wasn’t sure what the definition of “good person” was, but then realized that a fair baseline would be somebody who by and large isn’t too much more selfish than average and doesn’t generally wish harm to others for the sake of harming them. By those metrics I believe she’d probably qualify, based on the relatively small amount I know about her.
This is all entirely independent of whether she’d be a good politician, mind you. There have been bad people who were good politicians, and there have been good people who were bad politicians. (Trump is neither of the above.)
[quote=“ITR_champion, post:89, topic:825132”]
I think Hillary is a terrible person.
Hillary, by contrast, is an opportunistic snake with no principles that she wouldn’t sacrifice for money or power. As exhibit A, we need only observe that she’s remained married to a serial sex predator.
[li]Besides the foreign policy decisions already mentioned, she voted for the Iraq War, for the Patriot Act,…[/li][li]Terrible record on free speech and civil liberties issues. Claiming to protect our dear little children, she supported numerous unconstitutional restrictions on speech.[/li][li]She was against gay marriage for almost her entire career, then flip-flopped when it became convenient.[/li][/QUOTE]
Just about everyone voted for those, and her vote made no actual difference. If that makes her a terrible person that also makes nearly every congressman a terrible person and at that point using the term “terrible person” is meaningless.
That’s not true. Bogus accusations, political motivation. Except of course one intern who seduce him.
And many of those other allegations are from a bogus right wing site. For example, the
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) , was passed in 1998, Hillary Clinton did not enter the Senate until 2001. Same with the 1996 Communications Decency Act , and so forth. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002aka the BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act? Most of that was upheld by the court but SCOTUS finally negated a critical portion in the widely criticized Citizens United Decision. Every politician who voted for the McCain–Feingold Act should be praised, not castigated.
That’s what you get when you cite such bogus and biased sites.
So wait, keep in mind I am anti-Trump but follow me here …
When Kavanaugh was accused; to not believe his accuser was wrong but when Clinton was accused it was just Bogus accusations, political motivation?
I think both were sexual predators myself.
Also Monica was a young intern, Bill was the married middle-age President, don’t try to put the blame on her. That is crap.
Forget blame; I’m not even convinced a crime was committed.
There are three allegations vs Bill. One was proved false, after expensive investigations lasting over ten years. Not swept under the rug in two weeks. One case was dismissed as lacking legal merit, but settled out of court upon appeal. The third is rather problematic, she recanted he allegation then changed her mind. Her case was dismissed. Her case was investigated for years, not two weeks. So, we have one & a half *over four decades, *all fully investigated.
Hardly “serial”.
In that case I don’t think most people think it was a crime, but extremely poor judgement and a betrayal of his marriage.
The Starr investigation was ridiculous as was the impeachment hearings, but I can’t to this day think Bill Clinton wasn’t a generally slimy politician that did a lot of good despite that.
Hmmm, an adult male gets one free predation? Is that what you’re saying? I doubt it, but no clue why you brought serial into this discussion.