New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Question No One Seems to Be Able To Answer

fairsheet said:
This is an interesting question, for sure. Funny thing is, maybe the answer to this question is that her detractors can't come up with anything valid, that she did wrong? For the entirety of her 4-year service in that position - right up until Benghazi when it was nearing an end, Sec. of State Clinton was THE most popular American political figure, by a furlong. Even GOPs approved of her service at a pretty surprising rate (around 40%).

Of course, I'm sure ALL American Secs. of State dream of something over the top - like maybe a final answer to the Israel-Palestine thing? Beyond that though, maybe giving the people nothing to bitch about, is the best we can hope for?
Click to expand...

So far except for Caroljo's post that a lot of people will vote for Hillary because she is woman, this post of yours comes the closest to providing a 'reason' to vote for her. This line of yours is a real gem. "Beyond that though, maybe giving the people nothing to bitch about, is the best we can hope for?" So do you actually believe that spending 4 years flying around the world delivering the messages that she was directed by others to deliver is a qualification as long as nobody bitched about the messenger?

Without resorting to any of the accusations that are out there about her that is being put aside by many as simply negative, the question truly is, what has she done on her own that would qualify her for such a powerful position of leadership?

Seems like a fair question to me.
 
Boltlady said:
So far except for Caroljo's post that a lot of people will vote for Hillary because she is woman, this post of yours comes the closest to providing a 'reason' to vote for her. This line of yours is a real gem. "Beyond that though, maybe giving the people nothing to bitch about, is the best we can hope for?" So do you actually believe that spending 4 years flying around the world delivering the messages that she was directed by others to deliver is a qualification as long as nobody bitched about the messenger?

Without resorting to any of the accusations that are out there about her that is being put aside by many as simply negative, the question truly is, what has she done on her own that would qualify her for such a powerful position of leadership?

Seems like a fair question to me.
Click to expand...
Today's world is a remarkably complex place. The fact of someone spending 4 years flying around "delivering messages" to an end that not even the Fox/GOPs could bitch about, IS worthy of note. President Bill Clinton received a rather historic standing ovation from the collected UN. I suggest that had to do with the fact that the world trusted him. Evidently, the world has trusted Hillary as well.

You think that's easy?......give me an alternative who's made his or her case.
 
bdtex said:
No. But,GOPs have little else to go with. They've already lost on the big policy issues. Character assassination is all that's left.
Click to expand...

Ohh please! How do you besmirch let alone assassinate the character of a proven habitual liar with a rap sheet going back 40 years to when she was fired for lying and dishonesty as a lawyer serving on the Watergate impeachment committee; for scandal after scandal in her years in the White House; for lying about her use of a personal server with minimal security which classified documents went through and then destroyed the evidence that was under subpoena?

How do you do that? How do you assassinate that sort of character?
 
Charcat said:
I have heard no logical explanations of why anybody would want Hillary. It's her turn and she's a woman doesn't cut it with me.
Click to expand...

Sure thing...gimme a reason for any of the republicans....How about Carly Fiorina? Why in hell would anyone vote for her?
 
fairsheet said:
You lost me there. I thought the question went to what she did right, not what you feel she did wrong. Keep in mind that expressing your rote fear/hate of Clinton, is redundant.
Click to expand...

You said "is that the best we can hope for" in a Secretary of State? And I suggested a few things we should perhaps "hope for" in a Secretary of State. Maybe you got "lost" because you weren't paying attention...
 
Charcat said:
Clinton State Department accomplishments:

There were none...ummm....ummmm.
Click to expand...
She successfully dodged sniper fire. Oh, wait. She told that story while running for President.

Fact-checking Ms. Clinton is a full time job: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/factchecking-hillary-clinton/
......There’s plenty more in our file on Clinton, which is like a trip down memory lane. But it has been a while since she last campaigned for office (2008), so much of our material is dated or no longer pertinent. For instance, Clinton said that her health care plan was the only one that would achieve universal coverage, when experts said it would come close but wouldn’t cover everyone. And during her last run, she repeatedly made the misleading claim that a 2005 energy bill included “enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries.” It actually increased taxes, on net, on oil and gas companies.

We expect to find more timely claims as we continue to monitor Clinton and all potential 2016 presidential candidates.
 
bdtex said:
No. But,GOPs have little else to go with. They've already lost on the big policy issues. Character assassination is all that's left.
Click to expand...
While, IMHO, the RNC is more F'cked up than a football bat, Hillary Clinton's worst enemy is her own mouth.

Dead broke, sniper fire, emails. The list is long and all of her own doing. To blame others for calling her on it, even the Republicans, is to dodge the reality that her character is highly flawed and it's not "character assassination " to point that out.
 
fairsheet said:
Today's world is a remarkably complex place. The fact of someone spending 4 years flying around "delivering messages" to an end that not even the Fox/GOPs could bitch about, IS worthy of note. President Bill Clinton received a rather historic standing ovation from the collected UN. I suggest that had to do with the fact that the world trusted him. Evidently, the world has trusted Hillary as well.

You think that's easy?......give me an alternative who's made his or her case.
Click to expand...

Alternative? The thread is specifically about Hillary and her 'accomplishments'. In keeping with that theme I also threw in the question of why would people vote for her? So far the only thing that you've come up with is that she was able to implement the instructions that she got from others well enough to dodge 'bitching' from the Fox/GOPs.

Even though I've often stated that I believe the President is really a puppet that is controlled by other forces, somehow I would like to see more than that from a person who would be given all of that power.

Do you have anything else that might be construed as an accomplishment worthy of that position?
 
Drumcollie said:
4 Dead people.
Click to expand...
Agreed. No need to pull a "Hillary" by exaggerating the truth. She didn't murder anyone, but it was certainly on her watch when an Ambassador complained about a lack of security and subsequently saw a consulate and annex overrun and several of the staff, including the Ambassador murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists (not locals protesting a movie).

It was also on her watch when she played a part in the WH administration's efforts to downplay the attack as nothing more than a local protest gone hostile in the weeks leading up to a tight election.

Hillary Clinton has a long legacy of being less than honest and less than transparent. The email fiasco was just the latest example of her behavior.
 
Lukey said:
You said "is that the best we can hope for" in a Secretary of State? And I suggested a few things we should perhaps "hope for" in a Secretary of State. Maybe you got "lost" because you weren't paying attention...
Click to expand...

Perhaps we can hope for a Secretary of State who figures out how to spin straw into gold, as well? Wouldn't THAT be nice!
 
fairsheet said:
Perhaps we can hope for a Secretary of State who figures out how to spin straw into gold, as well? Wouldn't THAT be nice!
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting "going by the email rules" and not accepting donations from foreign government officials is as "fantastical" as spinning straw into gold? Or is this just another lefty false equivalency used to justify your double standards and acceptance of corruption by leftist pols?
 
Max R. said:
Agreed. No need to pull a "Hillary" by exaggerating the truth. She didn't murder anyone, but it was certainly on her watch when an Ambassador complained about a lack of security and subsequently saw a consulate and annex overrun and several of the staff, including the Ambassador murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists (not locals protesting a movie).

It was also on her watch when she played a part in the WH administration's efforts to downplay the attack as nothing more than a local protest gone hostile in the weeks leading up to a tight election.

Hillary Clinton has a long legacy of being less than honest and less than transparent. The email fiasco was just the latest example of her behavior.
Click to expand...

She covered up the crime then destroyed the emails and the server, which then was found out to be illegal... And don't forget the order to stand down, rather than help the ambassador and that he died of smoke inhalation. The fall out is unreal. Maybe Murderess is strong...how about accomplice to murder?
 
Drumcollie said:
She covered up the crime then destroyed the emails and the server, which then was found out to be illegal... And don't forget the order to stand down, rather than help the ambassador and that he died of smoke inhalation. The fall out is unreal. Maybe Murderess is strong...how about accomplice to murder?
Click to expand...
What is her motivation to see an Ambassador die on her watch?
 
Max R. said:
What is her motivation to see an Ambassador die on her watch?
Click to expand...

I doubt she wanted him dead, although he was clearly involved in some sort of weapons trafficking operation. I think it was just more typical Clinton incompetence at work. She was obviously too busy tending to her money laundering operation and other criminal enterprises to be bothered with doing her actual job.
 
Max R. said:
What is her motivation to see an Ambassador die on her watch?
Click to expand...
Really good question...what was her motivation for the stand down order? I haven't heard a real answer..all I heard was her blaming the Swedish(Severieges):

Småland Savage group
 
marvin martian said:
I doubt she wanted him dead, although he was clearly involved in some sort of weapons trafficking operation. I think it was just more typical Clinton incompetence at work. She was obviously too busy tending to her money laundering operation and other criminal enterprises to be bothered with doing her actual job.
Click to expand...
Agreed except I wouldn't call it weapons "trafficking", but an authorized classified mission to move weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels. Reagan did something similar with the Contras in the 1980s.

I completely agree that Hillary's incompetence and/or negligence was a factor here. If it had been a Republican SoS, there's little doubt in my mind most on the Left would be agreeing but since it's one of their own....well, you know.

While the Dept of State was clearly a factor in protecting, or not, our Embassies and consulates, it's the cover up that is most disturbing. The story that it was not al-Qaeda but movie protestors prior to a national election is the story the bothers me most. Operations go bad and people die, but to cover up their deaths in order to protect points for an election is despicable. In that case, Hillary is just a player in the story since the main one came from the WH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top