Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FourScore

(9,704 posts)
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:00 PM Jun 2016

USA TODAY: Secretary without honor

Secretary without honor
Phillip Jennings 6:46 p.m. EDT June 5, 2016
When I hear people say Clinton emails don't matter, I remember a young Marine captain who owned up to his career-ruining mistake.

Apologists for Hillary Clinton’s alleged criminal mishandling of classified documents say that it doesn’t matter, that she really did nothing wrong, or nothing significant. But the real question is not so much what she did as how she has responded to being found out.

Once during the mid-1960s when I was on active duty in the Marine Corps, I was the air liaison officer for a battalion of Marines aboard 11 ships in the Mediterranean. As the air officer and a senior captain, I had a rotating responsibility for the nuclear code book, kept in the safe in the operations room of the lead amphibious squadron command ship. I shared that duty with another captain, a squared away young man, liked by all he commanded and the son of a very high-ranking Marine.

On the day our ships were leaving the Mediterranean, we met the new amphibious squadron near Gibraltar and made preparations to transfer security codes and other sensitive material to the incoming Marine battalion. The young captain was on duty and went to the operations office to pick up the code book. He was alone in the office. He removed the code book and placed it on the desk while closing the safe. In a rushed moment, he stepped across the passageway to retrieve something he needed from his quarters. Seconds later, he stepped back into the operations office and found the operations sergeant having just entered, looking down at the code book.

Against all regulations, the code book had been out of the safe and unattended. It mattered not that it was unattended for only seconds, that the ship was 5 miles at sea, or that it was certain no one unauthorized had seen the code. The captain could have explained this to the operations sergeant. He could have told the sergeant that he “would take care of it.” He could have hinted that his high-ranking dad could smooth it over.

But the Marine Corps’ values are honor, courage and commitment. Honor is the bedrock of our character. The young captain could not ask the sergeant to betray his duty to report the infraction, no matter how small. Instead, the captain simply said, “Let’s go see the colonel...”

SNIP (Please read the article to find out what happened to the young officer. I must edit it for fair use.)

...Clinton is the antithesis of that young captain, someone with no honor, little courage and commitment only to her endless ambition. This has nothing to do with gender, party affiliation, ideology or policy. It is a question of character — not just hers, but ours. Electing Clinton would mean abandoning holding people accountable for grievous errors of integrity and responsibility. What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign. But beyond that, her responses to being found out — dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others — indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal. Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is that so many in America seem not to care.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-consequences-integrity-honesty-column/85205018/
104 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
USA TODAY: Secretary without honor (Original Post) FourScore Jun 2016 OP
You want Trump to be President? upaloopa Jun 2016 #1
YOU must. YOU are supporting the Candidate that LOSES to him... AzDar Jun 2016 #11
Hillary DOESN'T lose to him. Stop lying. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #86
Looks like you do. 840high Jun 2016 #41
No lancer78 Jun 2016 #54
Ding done! THREAD WIN! pinebox Jun 2016 #78
WONDERFUL THREAD...REC, AND LOVE TIMES 2,000,000 AikidoSoul Jun 2016 #96
Better of two evils doesn't take into account that one of the evils hedgehog Jun 2016 #103
that's all you got in response to this? tk2kewl Jun 2016 #66
No. That's why I support Bernie. Herman4747 Jun 2016 #85
11 days MFM008 Jun 2016 #2
Yes, 11 days warrprayer Jun 2016 #4
Not hardly. I stopped "ignoring" because we're Hortensis Jun 2016 #65
USA today stories will be allowed in 11 days, wow, you hill..... Logical Jun 2016 #20
Wingnut propaganda is what you want to promote? Dem2 Jun 2016 #21
USA today is a real news source Logical Jun 2016 #23
So you like promoting pig Republican warmongers who say Vietnam was a success in defeating Communism Dem2 Jun 2016 #25
Let us know which opinion pieces will be allowed Logical Jun 2016 #27
You know you're not thinking when you take 2 seconds to defend using right-wing gutter warmongers Dem2 Jun 2016 #31
FFS, do you whine a lot. So NYT is right wing to you also? Logical Jun 2016 #36
Right Wing War Mongers? bahrbearian Jun 2016 #92
That's now the Democratic presumptive nominee Dem2 Jun 2016 #93
Its Odd that a Democratic Party would vote for a war monger , Clintons changed that too. bahrbearian Jun 2016 #97
Only stuff from media matters, correct the record and other sources merrily Jun 2016 #51
Dont forget the unceasingly impartial BlueNationReview! Kentonio Jun 2016 #58
Right-wing op-eds are not. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #87
Lol, you can be the DU editor then nt Logical Jun 2016 #88
you url shows the piece is in the OPINION section of the paper.. Bill USA Jun 2016 #104
that's not news, it's pure Mccarthyism. Allegations based on zero evidence. Bill USA Jun 2016 #90
Lol, take it up with USA Today. Nt Logical Jun 2016 #91
if you are not able to recognize an opinion piece, you've got a serious intellectual disability. Bill USA Jun 2016 #94
Yes, because no one else has issues with Hillary's irresponsible email mess except right wingers. nt Logical Jun 2016 #98
if you will notice, the url you put in OP shows the article is in the OPINION section of the paper. Bill USA Jun 2016 #99
So now Bernie fans link to a right wing investment banker opinion piece MattP Jun 2016 #3
Yeah, one would have thought k8conant Jun 2016 #7
+1000!!! EXCELLENT!! n/t Herman4747 Jun 2016 #75
... KingFlorez Jun 2016 #5
You know Scar was the bad guy in that movie right? Ash_F Jun 2016 #59
Yes KingFlorez Jun 2016 #71
I find this coincidence rather amazing Tarc Jun 2016 #6
I wonder after the 16th how many will be frequenting that site from here still_one Jun 2016 #13
Yeah...they had some fun Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #16
huh Dem2 Jun 2016 #19
Lol, the first fucking link is to USA today, quit making shit up Logical Jun 2016 #22
Um, I didn't say that it wasn't Tarc Jun 2016 #26
Even a bigger coincidence! Hillary voted for the Patriot Act that Bush created! pinebox Jun 2016 #79
Why, hello there, non-sequitur Tarc Jun 2016 #80
K 'n' R tularetom Jun 2016 #8
not to worry. I'm sure the pardon letter is already drafted. ReasonableToo Jun 2016 #9
K&R dchill Jun 2016 #10
I still have my hand receipts for the authentication codes. Downwinder Jun 2016 #12
It's always interesting watching the commentary of Team Hill to these types of things Hydra Jun 2016 #14
At least they're getting paid . . . right? pdsimdars Jun 2016 #68
Rightwing article by Republican also Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #15
It seems it mattered to Hillary in 2007. Source: herself. Allowed after June14? floppyboo Jun 2016 #44
Ah they all do it meme. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #62
I thought about it floppyboo Jun 2016 #73
The plot thickens. AtomicKitten Jun 2016 #17
Still peddling the Frank Hugenard libel? Tarc Jun 2016 #28
Article was redacted? felix_numinous Jun 2016 #35
Thanks. Read the 840high Jun 2016 #43
Bernie should have vetted her. AtomicKitten Jun 2016 #48
Major WINGNUT alert!! This guy is pro-war - how in god's name can you use sources like this? Dem2 Jun 2016 #18
Uh, Her Majesty is as pro-war as any other neocon. But then you know that. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #29
Hey, thanks for acknowledging the massive hypocrisy I'm pointing out here! Dem2 Jun 2016 #34
Absoloutley disgusting source Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #63
Sure, leaving the nuclear codes applicable to the entire theatres arsenal is equivalent to stevenleser Jun 2016 #24
There you go Steve--rationalization right out of the chute! BillZBubb Jun 2016 #32
Well, then it's on you to show how the nuclear codes and Hillary's emails are the same stevenleser Jun 2016 #39
Her Majesty signed an SF312. She swore to protect classified information just like the military. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #42
You should go explain this on Fox News and Newsmax Now Matt_in_STL Jun 2016 #77
Or Bernie can. Go bother him if you don't like people appearing there stevenleser Jun 2016 #81
He's not a contributor and hasn't collected a paycheck from Murdoch Matt_in_STL Jun 2016 #82
I've told you this several times now. At this point you are stalking me. I am not a contributor stevenleser Jun 2016 #83
Divide and conquer us liberals right? kimbutgar Jun 2016 #30
How do you know the story is bogus? Because it puts Hillary to shame? BillZBubb Jun 2016 #33
No because I'm tired of bullshit outrage about stuff all politicians do to advance their careers kimbutgar Jun 2016 #37
I think you better aim that bull shit meter at yourself. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #69
Any story telling the TRUTH about HRC is bogus to them bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #38
Exactly, cultists can't stand the truth, it is to be mocked, dismissed, disparaged and ignored. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #40
They outright deny the truth. It's astonishing they fancy themselves progressives... JudyM Jun 2016 #45
If you are a Bernie supporter, why does your profile say your favorite group is "Hillary Clinton". FourScore Jun 2016 #47
They all lie just like their leader. They say whatever they think you should hear. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #70
Wow. A Bernie supporter whose favorite group is the Hillary Clinton group. djean111 Jun 2016 #57
another day another right wing hit piece dlwickham Jun 2016 #46
Excellent OP. Clinton cannot place any principle or authority above her own ambition. senz Jun 2016 #49
for shame, hillary clinton! hopemountain Jun 2016 #50
I do not want Trump to be President, but I hate to say that I agree with this. And what is worse, so highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #52
"...which means they apparently do not believe in honor either. " DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #60
Yeah well this is posted on Free Republic Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author Chicago1980 Jun 2016 #53
The same guy... Chicago1980 Jun 2016 #55
Is this one of the guys who just happened to be in John Kerry's swiftboat? ucrdem Jun 2016 #56
Over 60 recs for an editorial written by a Trump supporter. sufrommich Jun 2016 #61
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #67
We've already seen important talking heads refuse to twist logic to help Clinton Babel_17 Jun 2016 #72
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #74
YES, BEING SEEN AS MORE HONEST THAN TRUMP... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #76
If not indictment, then definitely impeachment. The Republicans have libdem4life Jun 2016 #84
pure McCarthyist BS, charges without any basis. article is an example of abject iniquity. Bill USA Jun 2016 #89
Hurry up FBI lmbradford Jun 2016 #95
Phillip Jennings is right wing nut. arely staircase Jun 2016 #100
The 16th can't come soon enough still_one Jun 2016 #101
No shit. It will be a fun day.nt arely staircase Jun 2016 #102
 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
54. No
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:53 AM
Jun 2016

I don't want either to be President. I will vote on my principles like I did in 2012 (Did not like any candidate, so do not vote for any of them).

If we are forced to vote because "lesser of two evils", then we truly do not have a freedom of voting. It is why Sanders is doing so well. We had HRC shoved down our throats and when a viable alternative came along, many of us jumped on the chance to have our vote mean something,

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
103. Better of two evils doesn't take into account that one of the evils
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 05:17 PM
Jun 2016

could literally destroy the United States

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
65. Not hardly. I stopped "ignoring" because we're
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:27 AM
Jun 2016

ONLY 11 DAYS!!! now away, but I could take out the rest and still have a nice community. THEN there are all the oldies who still observe briefly and are waiting for the time to return.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
20. USA today stories will be allowed in 11 days, wow, you hill.....
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:08 AM
Jun 2016

Fans want to control the news now. Not a shock.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
25. So you like promoting pig Republican warmongers who say Vietnam was a success in defeating Communism
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:16 AM
Jun 2016

hehe, love promoting the type that says "those godamned commie pinko liberals" eh?

Fine. Who needs standards when gutter politics will do?

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
31. You know you're not thinking when you take 2 seconds to defend using right-wing gutter warmongers
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:19 AM
Jun 2016

After what is said about Hillary, the hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

How can anybody respect anything you say now?

merrily

(45,251 posts)
51. Only stuff from media matters, correct the record and other sources
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:43 AM
Jun 2016

controlled by Brock. Maybe Soros, too, but only if they're favorable to Hillary.
Otherwise, source shaming is on like Donkey Kong (whatever that means). Are we clear now? (Reply "Crystal" and you win a candy bar.)

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
94. if you are not able to recognize an opinion piece, you've got a serious intellectual disability.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:51 PM
Jun 2016


It's an opinion piece and that's not opinion, it's fact. Ask someone who can help you , like an average kid in the third grade.



 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
98. Yes, because no one else has issues with Hillary's irresponsible email mess except right wingers. nt
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:19 PM
Jun 2016

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
99. if you will notice, the url you put in OP shows the article is in the OPINION section of the paper.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 05:02 PM
Jun 2016

here's the url: "http://www.usatoday.com/story/OPINION/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-consequences-integrity-honesty-column/85205018/"


If you got the hard copy of the paper, at the top of the page it has the title: "OPINION" indicating that section of the paper is not composed of News articles, but of Opinion pieces.

Nothing wrong with opinions - just don't try to pass them off as news stories as you did.

It's fine to ask questions, but Repugnants are making conclusions before all the results are. I too have quoted informed opinion - those of Attorney's who have prosecuted and defended people charged with breaking laws governing handling of classified information who have said that without proving intent, it's very unlikely there will be a prosecution*. It is peddling disinformation when statements are made as if it's a foregone conclusion that HRC will be indicted - rather than saying it's somebody's judgement call re the outcome. So far, any emails represented as containing classified info were classified after the fact, not when HRC received them.


* The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t


Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

[font size="3"]“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.[/font]

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

~~
~~

[font size="3"]First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.[/font]

[font size="3"]Potential criminal violations arise when officials knowingly disseminate documents marked as classified to unauthorized officials or on unclassified systems, or otherwise misuse classified materials.[/font] That happened in two cases involving former CIA directors that are cited as parallels for the Clinton e-mail issue, but are quite different. John Deutch was pardoned in 2001 for using an unsecured CIA computer at his home to improperly access classified material; he reportedly had been prepared to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in April for “knowingly” removing classified documents from authorized locations and retaining them at “unauthorized locations.” Neither case fits the fact pattern with the Clinton e-mails.
(more)

k8conant

(3,030 posts)
7. Yeah, one would have thought
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:12 PM
Jun 2016

a right wing investment banker would support a supporter of right wing investment bankers!

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
6. I find this coincidence rather amazing
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:08 PM
Jun 2016

This is posted at the DU at 11pm

Upon googling for "phillip jennings usa today" to find out more about the author, hit #6 is the Free Republic, where the very same article is linked at 10:56pm.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
16. Yeah...they had some fun
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:32 PM
Jun 2016

alert stalking Hillary voters and basically getting them tossed out in many cases. Now the primary nightmare is almost over.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
79. Even a bigger coincidence! Hillary voted for the Patriot Act that Bush created!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:27 AM
Jun 2016

Imagine that.

ReasonableToo

(505 posts)
9. not to worry. I'm sure the pardon letter is already drafted.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:15 PM
Jun 2016

Media is no longer keeping Trump afloat and he is imploding. (according to schedule?) We'll get a song and dance about looking forward and it will be general enough to cover the money for arms sale approvals and buying super delegates and all the other "irregularities" of the Clinton Foundation. It will probably cover both Hill and Bill since the server was in their residence.

Clean slate.

Evidently, Mr. Daltrey, we WILL get fooled again. and again. and again.

Downwinder

(12,869 posts)
12. I still have my hand receipts for the authentication codes.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:17 PM
Jun 2016

I was told if we ditched I had better have the codes with me.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
14. It's always interesting watching the commentary of Team Hill to these types of things
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:28 PM
Jun 2016

"It doesn't matter!"

Laws, policies, procedures, rules...what do we have if we don't have those? Blind faith?

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
15. Rightwing article by Republican also
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:31 PM
Jun 2016

posted at Free Republic...they love it! It is not appropriate for here though and in a few days...it won't be allowed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3437243/posts

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
62. Ah they all do it meme.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:17 AM
Jun 2016

I will not defend something that happened in 2007...right now you are posting the same shit that is posted at Free Republica..think about that. In fact,some of what you said mirrors what they said. It is the same article written by a right wing shill...full of bull shit.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
73. I thought about it
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:57 AM
Jun 2016

and that 'same shit' is a clip from a democratic conference. So I don't understand you. Also, I don't understand what you mean by some of what I said - all I said was in the reply title. Nothing there but a question from little ol me.

Anyways, did you have an answer? Will primary source materials still be allowed in your humble opinion?

felix_numinous

(5,198 posts)
35. Article was redacted?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:21 AM
Jun 2016

The text is now unreadable.

I found that another online article on this subject was removed quickly.

Frank Hugenard, a scientist, public speaker and freelance contributor, had his report removed by HuffPo editors and his account disabled without explanation. The piece was entitled, ““Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges” and it quickly went viral before being removed.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/presidential-candidate-hillary-clinton-indicted-breaking-news/#ixzz4AlmZZCZC

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
48. Bernie should have vetted her.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:55 AM
Jun 2016

The GOP is going to annihilate her. As always, her acolytes will claim it's a rightwing conspiracy. The evidence has reached critical mass. The Bill Cosby Rule applies. With a plethora of accusations, you can be sure at least part of it is true. Ths figures in this graphic are sourced from filings. They are true. The GOP has their arsenal against Hillary. It is formidable and the damage her campaign sustains will be entirely self-inflicted. I'm going to pull up my lawn chair and watch the fireworks.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
18. Major WINGNUT alert!! This guy is pro-war - how in god's name can you use sources like this?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:02 AM
Jun 2016
The Vietnam War was a tragic and dismal failure—at least that is what the mainstream media and history books would have you believe. Yet, Phillip Jennings sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam War. In this latest “P.I.G.”, Jennings shatters culturally-accepted myths and busts politically incorrect lies that liberal pundits and leftist professors have been telling you for years. The Vietnam War was the most important—and successful—campaign to defeat Communism http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Vietnam-Guides/dp/1596985674/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389832268&sr=8-1&keywords=Politically+Incorrect+Guide+Vietnam+Guides


Shameless wingnut promotion to help your candidate?

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
29. Uh, Her Majesty is as pro-war as any other neocon. But then you know that.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:18 AM
Jun 2016

She must be a WINGNUT too!

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
63. Absoloutley disgusting source
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:21 AM
Jun 2016

They rail against Hillary for being too much of a hawk and then post stuff like this. This is posted at Free Republic. Seriously, are some of these people even Dems? I have to wonder.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
24. Sure, leaving the nuclear codes applicable to the entire theatres arsenal is equivalent to
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:15 AM
Jun 2016

what Hillary did. And military culture is the same as civilian government culture.

Oh wait, no they are not.

Apples and oranges comparisons like this just don't work. And that's just the beginning of what's wrong with this analysis.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
32. There you go Steve--rationalization right out of the chute!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:19 AM
Jun 2016

BTW, when did you decide Hillary was honest and trustworthy?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
39. Well, then it's on you to show how the nuclear codes and Hillary's emails are the same
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:25 AM
Jun 2016

if you think it's rationalization, go for it. And my support of Hillary is discussed in the article that has been in my tag line for months now.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
42. Her Majesty signed an SF312. She swore to protect classified information just like the military.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:29 AM
Jun 2016

Even more so because in her position she was an originator of classified information.

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
77. You should go explain this on Fox News and Newsmax Now
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:23 AM
Jun 2016

Make sure this gets out to those who follow you there.

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
82. He's not a contributor and hasn't collected a paycheck from Murdoch
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:38 AM
Jun 2016

Unlike you and Hillary. Funny how that works.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
83. I've told you this several times now. At this point you are stalking me. I am not a contributor
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:39 AM
Jun 2016

and I have not received a paycheck from there.

kimbutgar

(21,111 posts)
30. Divide and conquer us liberals right?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:18 AM
Jun 2016

I see the purpose of this bogus story. And I am a Bernie supporter.

Shame on you.

kimbutgar

(21,111 posts)
37. No because I'm tired of bullshit outrage about stuff all politicians do to advance their careers
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:23 AM
Jun 2016

My outrage meter has developed to the point I can detect bullshit propaganda stories.

FourScore

(9,704 posts)
47. If you are a Bernie supporter, why does your profile say your favorite group is "Hillary Clinton".
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:28 AM
Jun 2016

Why don't you link to some of your pro-Bernie posts?

You probably don't have much of a problem with Hillary's honesty problem, do you?

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
49. Excellent OP. Clinton cannot place any principle or authority above her own ambition.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:03 AM
Jun 2016

Thanks, FourScore.

 

highprincipleswork

(3,111 posts)
52. I do not want Trump to be President, but I hate to say that I agree with this. And what is worse, so
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:47 AM
Jun 2016

many in the Democratic Party seem not to care, which means they apparently do not believe in honor either.

I am sad that the Democratic Party has become a political party lacking in the kind of moral integrity and political principles that truly made it a defender of the less advantaged and less powerful and just the average lot of the rest of us.

I believe that high principles work. They win elections better than anything else, and low principles drive people away and lose elections.

Either in the long run or the short term, high principles work and low principles lose. They lose in the very following of them.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
60. "...which means they apparently do not believe in honor either. "
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:54 AM
Jun 2016
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

-Ralph Waldo Emerson



I will go from the exalted to the the profane in one stream of thought...This whole thread is an excuse to take a rhetorical shit on Hillary Clinton.




Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
64. Yeah well this is posted on Free Republic
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:24 AM
Jun 2016

and they agree with it too...I have to say...you should give back your liberal card...too much agreement with righties.

Response to FourScore (Original post)

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
61. Over 60 recs for an editorial written by a Trump supporter.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:58 AM
Jun 2016

I wish I would have kept a list of all the right wingers who have been embraced and all the liberals who have been trashed in the name of St.Bernie the Pure.

Response to sufrommich (Reply #61)

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
72. We've already seen important talking heads refuse to twist logic to help Clinton
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:52 AM
Jun 2016

Now we have the FOIA case winding its way, and an upcoming release of an FBI investigation. Conventional wisdom regarding Secretary Clinton's trustworthiness and honesty is at a real risk for taking another serious hit. And it's already at an amazingly bad level. It's roughly as bad as Trump's afaik.

Published June 1, 2016:

From May 24 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,561 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 678 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points.


38. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think - is more honest and trustworthy: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2352

Clinton 39%
Trump 44
DK/NA 17

Our party's candidate should be doing much better in that metric, imo. Being seen as better than Trump in that should be a minimum requirement.

Response to Babel_17 (Reply #72)

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
76. YES, BEING SEEN AS MORE HONEST THAN TRUMP...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:23 AM
Jun 2016

...SHOULD BE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Hillary, alas, may fail to meet this requirement.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
84. If not indictment, then definitely impeachment. The Republicans have
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:59 PM
Jun 2016

been eagerly awaiting her...and I think she revels in it, as well. That's what she does best...fight. That was then. Now, hubris aside, the Foundation will be the downfall, IMO.

An extra glass ceiling cracked...impeached spouses.

lmbradford

(517 posts)
95. Hurry up FBI
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:52 PM
Jun 2016

I care about classified info. I have a daughter in the Air Force. There is a reason military and vets love Bernie.

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
100. Phillip Jennings is right wing nut.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 05:10 PM
Jun 2016

The Vietnam War was a tragic and dismal failure—at least that is what the mainstream media and history books would have you believe. Yet, Phillip Jennings sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam War. In this latest “P.I.G.”, Jennings shatters culturally-accepted myths and busts politically incorrect lies that liberal pundits and leftist professors have been telling you for years. The Vietnam War was the most important—and successful—campaign to defeat Communism. Without the sacrifices made and the courage displayed by our military, the world might be a different place. The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam War reveals the truth about the battles, players, and policies of one of the most

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»USA TODAY: Secretary with...