For JSO: A Tale of Forgiveness

[SeattleGriz]

Add pathological liar to her resume.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

...and clutz.

[BlueHen86]

Add pathological liar to her resume.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

She has a way to go before she can compete with Trump, but she needs the practice if she plans on running again.

She probably should continue writing books in the woods (or what ever she is doing), running and walking aren't her strong points.

[CID1990]

You've just made a compelling argument for her incompetence.

I'm with you... She's far from incompetent
No matter how hard she tries to paint that picture

I'm going to go with malfeasance on this one...

I mean... seriously...

there are two choices here - neither one is an argument for fitness for the office

some people seem to forget that - just because we have an oaf in the Oval Office isn't cause for rehabilitating the oaf that lost to him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I'm with you... She's far from incompetent
No matter how hard she tries to paint that picture

I'm going to go with malfeasance on this one...

I mean... seriously...

there are two choices here - neither one is an argument for fitness for the office

some people seem to forget that - just because we have an oaf in the Oval Office isn't cause for rehabilitating the oaf that lost to him

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

[css75]

I mean... seriously...

there are two choices here - neither one is an argument for fitness for the office

some people seem to forget that - just because we have an oaf in the Oval Office isn't cause for rehabilitating the oaf that lost to him

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

Apparently most states felt otherwise, she ran a horrible campaign. If the hag won, the whole country would be flooded with illegals. The immigration issue alone makes Trump better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I mean... seriously...

there are two choices here - neither one is an argument for fitness for the office

some people seem to forget that - just because we have an oaf in the Oval Office isn't cause for rehabilitating the oaf that lost to him

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

That's because you don't factor integrity and a sense of public service into your qualifications.

If you did, you'd find both her AND Trump unqualified.

[JohnStOnge]

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

That's because you don't factor integrity and a sense of public service into your qualifications.

If you did, you'd find both her AND Trump unqualified.

I think Clinton does have a sense of public service. I think she actually does have a philosophical world view with respect to how government should work and what it should do. This is a woman who graduated from Yale Law then, instead of going for a big money gig, went to work for the Children's Defense Fund.

Trump has no sense of public service at all.

[CID1990]

That's because you don't factor integrity and a sense of public service into your qualifications.

If you did, you'd find both her AND Trump unqualified.

I think Clinton does have a sense of public service. I think she actually does have a philosophical world view with respect to how government should work and what it should do. This is a woman who graduated from Yale Law then, instead of going for a big money gig, went to work for the Children's Defense Fund.

Trump has no sense of public service at all.

That is purely your opinion, coupled with another example of this recent "diploma worship" you've been doing.

[Ibanez]

That's because you don't factor integrity and a sense of public service into your qualifications.

If you did, you'd find both her AND Trump unqualified.

I think Clinton does have a sense of public service. I think she actually does have a philosophical world view with respect to how government should work and what it should do. This is a woman who graduated from Yale Law then, instead of going for a big money gig, went to work for the Children's Defense Fund.

Trump has no sense of public service at all.

Believe it or not - there are people that go into public service as a way to get close to power. Sure - Clinton might have started out working for the little guys..but that doesn't appear to be her motivation anymore. A guy I graduated HS with went to an Ivy League school and went straight to DC with a law degree. When we spoke a few years ago he admitted that the common goal isn't necessarily the good of the Republic....it's to get a lucrative job at a law firm or lobbying group based off his contacts.

In other words - it's a stepping stone.

[SeattleGriz]

I mean... seriously...

there are two choices here - neither one is an argument for fitness for the office

some people seem to forget that - just because we have an oaf in the Oval Office isn't cause for rehabilitating the oaf that lost to him

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

Qualified to do what exactly? What do you think America would be like right now if Hillary was elected. How would it be better or worse?

[css75]

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

Qualified to do what exactly? What do you think America would be like right now if Hillary was elected. How would it be better or worse?

Instead of illegals running amok in California, they would be in the whole country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I think Clinton does have a sense of public service. I think she actually does have a philosophical world view with respect to how government should work and what it should do. This is a woman who graduated from Yale Law then, instead of going for a big money gig, went to work for the Children's Defense Fund.

Trump has no sense of public service at all.

That is purely your opinion, coupled with another example of this recent "diploma worship" you've been doing.

It's not "diploma worship" per se. For example: I don't know what kind of education Stanford actually provides. But I do know that, if you don't have some kind of angle for getting in like being a member of an "under represented minority" or something, you're not getting into Stanford unless you are in a fraction of the top 1% in terms of academic achievement, standardized test scores, etc. And if you're like that it's a pretty good bet that you're in a fraction of the top 1% in terms of IQ. It's not the fact that someone got a degree from a school like Stanford or Harvard or Yale that impresses me. It's the fact that they got accepted.

Same with the Rhodes scholarship. Look, if someone gets accepted to Stanford, earns a Rhodes scholarship, then gets a PhD from Oxford they are a highly intelligent person. If you just describe that and ask any reasonable person whether they'd bet that person is more intelligent than, say, Sean Hannity I think most reasonable people would bet it ain't Sean Hannity.

Bill Gates is another example in a way. He doesn't have a college degree. But he got accepted to Harvard before deciding to drop out and make money. The fact that he didn't get a degree from Harvard doesn't dissuade me from thinking he has a very high IQ. He was accepted. And, obviously, other things have happened with him.

[JohnStOnge]

Clinton was qualified for the job. Trump is not.

Qualified to do what exactly? What do you think America would be like right now if Hillary was elected. How would it be better or worse?

You know that is a very good set of questions. And the answer is I think it would be about in the same place right now in terms of the economy. I think things like GDP, unemployment, the stock market, etc., would be about where they are right now.

But I think we are just starting to see Trump start with the most potentially damaging stuff he talked about during his campaign. The protectionists stuff.

I think we would be in a much better place in terms of the institutions that stabilize us. I think the crap that's going on with attacking the FBI because the FBI happens to be in Trump's way is very bad.

And, of course, I think that what's going on now is bad for the long term because Trump and the fact that Conservatives in general and Republicans in particular don't have the integrity to reject him is destroying the credibility of conservatism. Conservatives and Republicans are sacrificing any chance at all of remaining relevant in the long term for a short term sugar high by aligning themselves with this atrocity.

[UNI88]

That is purely your opinion, coupled with another example of this recent "diploma worship" you've been doing.

It's not "diploma worship" per se. For example: I don't know what kind of education Stanford actually provides. But I do know that, if you don't have some kind of angle for getting in like being a member of an "under represented minority" or something, you're not getting into Stanford unless you are in a fraction of the top 1% in terms of academic achievement, standardized test scores, etc. And if you're like that it's a pretty good bet that you're in a fraction of the top 1% in terms of IQ. It's not the fact that someone got a degree from a school like Stanford or Harvard or Yale that impresses me. It's the fact that they got accepted.

Same with the Rhodes scholarship. Look, if someone gets accepted to Stanford, earns a Rhodes scholarship, then gets a PhD from Oxford they are a highly intelligent person. If you just describe that and ask any reasonable person whether they'd bet that person is more intelligent than, say, Sean Hannity I think most reasonable people would bet it ain't Sean Hannity.

Bill Gates is another example in a way. He doesn't have a college degree. But he got accepted to Harvard before deciding to drop out and make money. The fact that he didn't get a degree from Harvard doesn't dissuade me from thinking he has a very high IQ. He was accepted. And, obviously, other things have happened with him.

John intelligence is great but by itself it doesn't demonstrate qualifications or competence. Bill Gates is beyond highly qualified not because he got into Harvard but because he played a major role in building Microsoft.

What are Hillary's signature accomplishments? I'm not asking what schools she got into or what positions she held. I'm asking what she accomplished while she was in a position.

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

[JohnStOnge]

It's not "diploma worship" per se. For example: I don't know what kind of education Stanford actually provides. But I do know that, if you don't have some kind of angle for getting in like being a member of an "under represented minority" or something, you're not getting into Stanford unless you are in a fraction of the top 1% in terms of academic achievement, standardized test scores, etc. And if you're like that it's a pretty good bet that you're in a fraction of the top 1% in terms of IQ. It's not the fact that someone got a degree from a school like Stanford or Harvard or Yale that impresses me. It's the fact that they got accepted.

Same with the Rhodes scholarship. Look, if someone gets accepted to Stanford, earns a Rhodes scholarship, then gets a PhD from Oxford they are a highly intelligent person. If you just describe that and ask any reasonable person whether they'd bet that person is more intelligent than, say, Sean Hannity I think most reasonable people would bet it ain't Sean Hannity.

Bill Gates is another example in a way. He doesn't have a college degree. But he got accepted to Harvard before deciding to drop out and make money. The fact that he didn't get a degree from Harvard doesn't dissuade me from thinking he has a very high IQ. He was accepted. And, obviously, other things have happened with him.

John intelligence is great but by itself it doesn't demonstrate qualifications or competence. Bill Gates is beyond highly qualified not because he got into Harvard but because he played a major role in building Microsoft.

What are Hillary's signature accomplishments? I'm not asking what schools she got into or what positions she held. I'm asking what she accomplished while she was in a position.

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I wasn't talking about Hillary and I don't think Cid was either. Yes what Hillary did with the private e mail server was bad. But she was and is still more qualified to be President of the United States than Donald Trump is.

[CID1990]

John intelligence is great but by itself it doesn't demonstrate qualifications or competence. Bill Gates is beyond highly qualified not because he got into Harvard but because he played a major role in building Microsoft.

What are Hillary's signature accomplishments? I'm not asking what schools she got into or what positions she held. I'm asking what she accomplished while she was in a position.

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I wasn't talking about Hillary and I don't think Cid was either. Yes what Hillary did with the private e mail server was bad. But she was and is still more qualified to be President of the United States than Donald Trump is.

Which is exactly the same thing as saying I am more qualified to play in the NBA than you are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I wasn't talking about Hillary and I don't think Cid was either. Yes what Hillary did with the private e mail server was bad. But she was and is still more qualified to be President of the United States than Donald Trump is.

Which is exactly the same thing as saying I am more qualified to play in the NBA than you are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think that it is. I think Clinton has way more of an understanding of how things work than Trump does. I think Trump is a total buffoon. He has no clue.

[CID1990]

Which is exactly the same thing as saying I am more qualified to play in the NBA than you are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think that it is. I think Clinton has way more of an understanding of how things work than Trump does. I think Trump is a total buffoon. He has no clue.

Says the guy who just wrote a thesis about her incompetence in the most fundamental area of national security.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Which is exactly the same thing as saying I am more qualified to play in the NBA than you are.

[Ibanez]

I wasn't talking about Hillary and I don't think Cid was either. Yes what Hillary did with the private e mail server was bad. But she was and is still more qualified to be President of the United States than Donald Trump is.

Which is exactly the same thing as saying I am more qualified to play in the NBA than you are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Shaq could do it.....

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think that it is. I think Clinton has way more of an understanding of how things work than Trump does. I think Trump is a total buffoon. He has no clue.

Says the guy who just wrote a thesis about her incompetence in the most fundamental area of national security.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I wrote a thesis about her incompetence in "the most fundamental area of national security" that was not my intent in that I do not think she demonstrated incompetence in "the most fundamental area of national security."

I suspect that if and when the "classified" e mails that were handled by her private server become public it'll be a big "meh."

When it come to competence:

I don't think we'd have had something happen with Clinton where she discussed a funding bill with Congressional leaders and said she supported it then all of a sudden on the morning after the Congressional leaders passed the bill and left town she suddenly decided she had a problem with it and went on Twitter to say she might veto it.

I think she understands the process of government way more than Trump does. And, yes, that is important.

No one would suggest that someone who had worked in government all their life and had never worked in Private industry should be made CEO of Exxon. And no one SHOULD suggest that someone who has absolutely NO experience in government should be made the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the national government.

[JohnStOnge]

[

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I do not think it's clear that, at the time that it happened, a person in her position understood that using a private e mail server was illegal. I think we were in a transitional period with respect to that sort of thing at that point.

That does not mean I don't think she acted improperly. I think she was way to concerned about trying to hide things.

[UNI88]

[

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I do not think it's clear that, at the time that it happened, a person in her position understood that using a private e mail server was illegal. I think we were in a transitional period with respect to that sort of thing at that point.

That does not mean I don't think she acted improperly. I think she was way to concerned about trying to hide things.

She had been First Lady and a US Senator, she knew and even on the very remote possibility that she didn't her staff did and she chose to ignore their warnings.

So she acted in properly and was trying to hide things but she's still honest and competent? That doesn't compute.

[css75]

[

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I do not think it's clear that, at the time that it happened, a person in her position understood that using a private e mail server was illegal. I think we were in a transitional period with respect to that sort of thing at that point.

That does not mean I don't think she acted improperly. I think she was way to concerned about trying to hide things.

Wrong, every federal employee from lowest janitor upward is told multiple times that is a no no. She knew, just figured she could do what she wanted, the biotch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

[

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I do not think it's clear that, at the time that it happened, a person in her position understood that using a private e mail server was illegal. I think we were in a transitional period with respect to that sort of thing at that point.

That does not mean I don't think she acted improperly. I think she was way to concerned about trying to hide things.

Completely wrong.

Why do you keep weighing in so authoritatively on something you obviously know so little about? You do realize there are at least 4 regular posters on this forum who have current clearances who are all telling you you are full of sh!t, right?