You know what, for Republicans who dislike Trump, Hillary must be a better bet:

1) You then get four (or eight) years of shouting at her and demanding impeachment etc

2) Even if the Dems do get control of Congress this year (which seems unlikely to be honest), by 2018 she'll be rendered as impotent as Obama was by a reaction in the mid-terms. It looks like the Democrats could get a few of the 4 Senate seats they'd need to deny the Republicans a majority. Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin and NH are in play. PA, Arizona and Ohio could be, although Nevada and Colorado could switch the other way - especially as Reid is standing down. But it would take something for the Democrats to gain 30 Representatives. A dozen looks high based on recent polling.

3) She may be a careerist hack, an establishment lacky, a self-driven political animal, but you know what you will get - nothing all that radical really, and if anything radical is proposed she'll be ready to compromise to get a sliver through. So her term is in many ways fairly predictable.

Sure, there ought to be better alternatives. But as Mencken wrote, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard"

I also like this one from him: "If there is one mental vice, indeed, which sets off the American people from all other folks who walk the earth ... it is that of assuming that every human act must be either right or wrong, and that ninety-nine percent of them are wrong."

danivon wrote:3) She may be a careerist hack, an establishment lacky, a self-driven political animal, but you know what you will get - nothing all that radical really, and if anything radical is proposed she'll be ready to compromise to get a sliver through. So her term is in many ways fairly predictable.

The two saddest bits:

1. She will put some creative hack on the Court--another "I don't give a fig about the Constitution" justice.

2. She will continue fighting wars with ROE that guarantee Americans will die while we accomplish nothing.

I find it funny how some of our liberal friends here are observant to Clinton's foibles. They may very well prefer her to Trump and that's cool but they "get it" that the woman has some major problems.
The conservatives also "get it" that Trump has as many if not more similar problems.

But one person continues to push the party line and fails to see her problems, can't we all admit the truth and accept each has some pretty big baggage? Like one or the other, hate one more than the other, dislike them both ...whatever but admit this is pretty damned pathetic, we actually CHOSE these two morons!

GMTom wrote:I find it funny how some of our liberal friends here are observant to Clinton's foibles. They may very well prefer her to Trump and that's cool but they "get it" that the woman has some major problems.
The conservatives also "get it" that Trump has as many if not more similar problems.

But one person continues to push the party line and fails to see her problems, can't we all admit the truth and accept each has some pretty big baggage? Like one or the other, hate one more than the other, dislike them both ...whatever but admit this is pretty damned pathetic, we actually CHOSE these two morons!

It is incredible to me.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:3) She may be a careerist hack, an establishment lacky, a self-driven political animal, but you know what you will get - nothing all that radical really, and if anything radical is proposed she'll be ready to compromise to get a sliver through. So her term is in many ways fairly predictable.

The two saddest bits:

1. She will put some creative hack on the Court--another "I don't give a fig about the Constitution" justice.

Maybe. It might be better to let Obama put his nominee on rather than risk someone "worse".

2. She will continue fighting wars with ROE that guarantee Americans will die while we accomplish nothing.

It is less the ROE than the wars. Were the pre-Obama ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan the problem, or was it more strategic or even wider than just the conflict side that meant they fell way short of pre-war aims?

Wow that's some rousing support from the Prez for Clinton!?
He waited until the Democrats had determined their candidate before he would give any support. He failed to support the person who was his secretary of state waiting until the bitter end before throwing his "support" behind her!?

That lack of early support tells volumes if you ask me.

GMTom wrote:Wow that's some rousing support from the Prez for Clinton!?
He waited until the Democrats had determined their candidate before he would give any support. He failed to support the person who was his secretary of state waiting until the bitter end before throwing his "support" behind her!?

That lack of early support tells volumes if you ask me.

Isn't it usually considered beneath a President to campaign for one or other candidate during the Primaries? I don't recall Bush pushing for any of the GOP options in 08. Or Bill Clinton doing much for Gore in '00.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:2. She will continue fighting wars with ROE that guarantee Americans will die while we accomplish nothing.

It is less the ROE than the wars. Were the pre-Obama ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan the problem, or was it more strategic or even wider than just the conflict side that meant they fell way short of pre-war aims?

The ROE were bad in Afghanistan under Bush. They've gotten more restrictive.

Yes, in my opinion, it is the problem. Why? Because it's indicative of a truth: we are willing to risk American lives for the possibility of establishing cohesive, inclusive governments in lands that have never had them. It is a fool's errand and not worth the risk of the lives of our troops.

Btw, the ROE was the reason I said we should pull out of Afghanistan 8-plus years ago. So, I'm less interventionist than Obama.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:2. She will continue fighting wars with ROE that guarantee Americans will die while we accomplish nothing.

It is less the ROE than the wars. Were the pre-Obama ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan the problem, or was it more strategic or even wider than just the conflict side that meant they fell way short of pre-war aims?

The ROE were bad in Afghanistan under Bush. They've gotten more restrictive.

Yes, in my opinion, it is the problem. Why? Because it's indicative of a truth: we are willing to risk American lives for the possibility of establishing cohesive, inclusive governments in lands that have never had them. It is a fool's errand and not worth the risk of the lives of our troops.

I see your point. Vietnam cost a lot more in American lives and was merely about protecting one dictatorship from another.

But that is about the war aims and the strategy, not the ROE. The reality is that regardless of the ROE, engaging in war will risk the lives of troops, unless we can only use drones.

danivon wrote:But that is about the war aims and the strategy, not the ROE. The reality is that regardless of the ROE, engaging in war will risk the lives of troops, unless we can only use drones.

There is no defined strategy. That is a major problem.

I'm not opposed to risking the lives of Americans--if we have definable objectives and reasonable ROE. In this case, we have neither--and no definable national interest.

Hillary must be "it's all about the Benjamins" in some language.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton- ... d=39710624

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

Oh, and about the "I never sent or received email that was MARKED at the time it was sent or received."

FALSE.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06 ... rking.html

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.

The “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.

"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."

Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department -- a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.

A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document

Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Oh, please. Don't try to minimize the contents--we only know about one. We know there were others.

The issue is beyond that. She said she absolutely did not do something and she did.

Not that it will change any minds but Ambassador Stevens' sister weighs in on Benghazi.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... r-benghazi

I thought her last comment to be interesting: "I know he had a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton. He admired her ability to intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture."

freeman3 wrote:Not that it will change any minds but Ambassador Stevens' sister weighs in on Benghazi.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... r-benghazi

I thought her last comment to be interesting: "I know he had a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton. He admired her ability to intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture."

So, how about the other victims' families?

What I find most shocking about the report are these items:

1) Panetta ordered the Armed Forces to respond; no one did. In fact, a response group in Spain was ordered in an out of uniform 4 times to not offend the Libyan "government."

2) There was a meeting at which Secretary Clinton was present. There were still many hours left of the attack. The main subject was how to make the video the cause of the attack. Political spin while Americans were being attacked.

3) It is demonstrable that Hillary (and others) lied repeatedly to the American people about the nature of the attack.

4. The Democrats complain about the cost--$7M. Really? That's not even a rounding error in DC.