No, it’s not. And has any Republican referred to fact checks that call them wrong as evidence that they are right? She says stuff knowing that most people won’t check.
Well if you believe she’s honest and trustworthy, then more power to you.
“All about perception” is referring to politics – “moral failing” is referring to morality. The two things are unconnected.
If you prefer a dishonest Democrat to an honest Republican, that’s a moral failing.
Like Hillarycare? She was there first, remember.
Bullshit.
Compared to me and my wife? No. Compared to the Republicans? Absolutely. Compared to other Democrats? Not sure, and still deciding. This is part of my decision making progress, but not the only part.
Let me know if there are any honest Republicans in the race. I know of none that are less dishonest/inaccurate than Hillary.
Further, it’s not necessarily a “moral failing” to prefer a dishonest candidate to an honest one. I’d much prefer a dishonest candidate who I thought was likely to avoid a stupid war then an honest candidate who would blunder into one.
In my opinion, preferring an honest warmonger (not that I know of any – McCain and Graham are warmongers, but they’re dishonest too… maybe John Bolton?) to a dishonest candidate who would avoid a stupid war is a moral failing, but I won’t state that as an objective assertion.
Right, it means *not *classified.
But we have pretty good suspicions anyway.
Clinton is a warmonger, so you don’t have a leg to stand on there either.
Yes I do – Clinton recognizes how big a mistake the Iraq war was, and she supports the Iran nuclear deal. The Republicans don’t.
As I mentioned in the other thread, she recognizes it’s a mistake in a Democratic primary. That mistake did nothing to dampen her enthusiasm for intervention during her term as Secretary of State.
I know you’re smarter than to weigh campaign rhetoric over a candidate’s actual record.
I’m unaware of her advocating for invading any country with ground troops as SoS. And while I oppose the bombings, it’s still better than Republicans’ record and rhetoric.
Absolutely – I consider them both. And considering them both, she is far less likely to get us into another dumb war than the Republicans.
Well, if you’re content to spend the next 4-8 years dropping bombs in several countries, okay then. You say you’re not content with it, but your electoral choices say otherwise.
“Bomb, bomb Iran …” :rolleyes:
That’s Democratic policy too, if they get close to a bomb.
Enough. Cites?
http://www.rt.com/usa/obama-netanyahu-iran-monday-545/
The US “won’t take any options off the table, including military action" to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons,
I think you know the difference.
Explain it to me. If Iran gets close to a bomb and there’s no diplomatic solution, we bomb regardless of who is in office. If that’s not true, explain to me how it’s not.
To repeat: Enough.
Government jobs, like all jobs, create wealth, and in the process take money from customers and give it to workers. The distinction you are drawing is meaningless.