Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So strip away all the academic language and whatever argument is contained in there, and what do you have? A secretary of state who excelled in many things. But nobody can quite remember what those were?
Red and off topic:
??? What academic language?
Blue:
Eleven Moments that Define Hillary Clinton
What Is Hillary’s Greatest Accomplishment?
I don't know that I'd say that nobody can remember what Mrs. Clinton has done or accomplished. Some folks may not, however. Others may not have bothered to go find out.
As a private citizen:
- Played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children whose parents cannot provide them with health coverage.
- She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
- She initiated and shepherded the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
- She encouraged older women to seek a mammogram for early detection of breast cancer (which is covered by Medicare) and successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the NIH.
- She created Arkansas's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth.
- She was the chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession.
- She worked to investigate illnesses that were reportedly affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome.
- She created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.
- She is also the first first lady to hold a postgraduate degree.
- She traveled to more countries than any other first lady had at that time.
- Won a Grammy Award.
- She served on the boards of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations.
- She was a law professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
- She was Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
- She was President of the Wellesley Young Republicans.
- She interned at the House Republican Conference.
- She was a distinguished graduate of Yale Law School.
- She was a staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund.
- She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
- She reformed Arkansas' education system.
- She was partner at the Rose Law Firm.
- Twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.
As a U.S. senator from New York:
- She was the first first woman to be elected to this office.
- She was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.
- She took a leading role in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing.
- In November 2012, Secretary of State Clinton brokered a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, effecting a ceasefire.
- After visiting soldiers in Iraq, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain and supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans.
- She was one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act.
- She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
- She served on five Senate committees:
- Committee on Budget (2001–2002)
- Committee on Armed Services (2003–2009)
- Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–2009)
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009)
- Special Committee on Aging.
As Secretary of State:
- She she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act.
I'm sure I've left out things....hopefully you get the idea that you must seek information that doesn't necessarily fall at your feet or that isn't part of pop culture's common awareness. Folks may not know what Mrs. Clinton, a person who's running for President has accomplished, but I'll wager they know who Brad Pitt is married to now and in the past. Now you tell me which information is more worth remembering, and bothering to know in the first place.
- She helped to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation.
- She advocated an expanded role in global economic issues for the State Department and cited the need for an increased U.S. diplomatic presence, especially in Iraq, where the Defense Department had conducted diplomatic missions.
- She unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security program, prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, saved the signing of a Turkish-Armenian accord.
- She served as commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
- She assisted the president with major decisions as to the U.S. position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use military force in Libya.
One may or may not agree -- it's irrelevant, in terms of her experience and accomplishments, whether one does or not -- politically with the aims and outcomes of some or all of what she's done, but what that has nothing to do with the prowess, nature and extent of excellent performance the woman has demonstrated since she was in college. Moreover, all that stuff she's done has imbued her with literally hundreds of lessons learned -- great and small -- from both her (objective) failures and successes, lessons she will bring to bear if/when she becomes President.
And the reason that nobody can recall any of those things when asked is that almost all,assumingf the list is actually accurate--where did you get the cut and paste?--is that almost all were gratuitous because she was married to the Attorney General and then the Governor of Arkansas and later the President of the United States. She apparently did little or nothing if she even showed up at most of those things. EVERY person running for high office has a list of stuff they were involved with in some way. And of course everybody has something they can point to with personal pride. But the proof is in those who work with the person and who testify to their contribution to an effort. Hillary doesn't seem to have anybody who can testify to her efforts, just those who repeat her self-created resume that she did this or did that.
...
I am not going to sit here and make up stuff about anyone. Indeed, and you should know this from my posts, that I make a point of refraining from even making empty accusations about the folks on USMB of whom I have a very low opinion even. That sort of thing just doesn't serve my interests or objectives, and it is beneath my integrity to do. I'm not perfect by any means, but one mistake I do not and will not make is inventing easily checked facts (or anything else).
Do you want to fact check the things I listed? Have at it. Google is your friend. Just copy and paste each one into Google and see what you find, or, where applicable, click on the links I provided in the bulleted points themselves.
I cannot tell you why various individuals cannot remember that she's done the things I noted. Perhaps they would rather not remember? Perhaps they never knew it to begin with, thus not remembering it comes easy to them? I really can't speak for why other individuals could not cite those things.
I think it is because a title or gratuitous honor or self-congratulation is not an accomplishment. For instance Obama's Nobel Prize received very early in his first year in office before he had done ANYTHING noteworthy to have deserved it. But it is on his resume.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
And we must remember that failure is a sign of doing something also. Clinton did not get her healthcare initiative past but at least she did something in the attempt. Unlike Nancy Reagan who was a total zero unlike Barbara Bush who was a total zero and unlike Laura Bush who also was a total zero.
I would hardly say those women were "total zeroes." That's not fair to them at all. I also don't see it as fair to compare them to anyone else.
Each of us, like those three women, Mrs. Clinton, you, and I, has our accomplishments and they stand or fall on their own, without reference to others. Life isn't a competition to be better than someone one else; it's a journey to be the best one can be as an individual. Those three women didn't choose to pursue public life; Mrs. Clinton did. That is what it is, but it hardly makes those women zeroes.
The opportunity one has as First Lady is unique, agreed? When you have the opportunity do you say and do nothing or do you contribute. HRC contributed as FLOTUS. They did not.
FLOTUS is a role that one acquires by default. One must remember that, so far, men have aspired to be President, not wives who aspire to be FLOTUS. One cannot actively pursue the role of FLOTUS, but a woman who happens to be married to the President will, like it or not, be FLOTUS.
That what those women did hasn't resonated with you doesn't mean they did nothing. It just means you haven't noticed what they did.
P.S./Edit:
Perhaps as FLOTUS, Mrs. Clinton thought she might want to one day be President. If so, it makes sense that she "do more" than had other FLOTUSes before her. Those other women may merely have wanted nothing more than to support their husbands. I don't know. I do know that FLOTUS, while it does present one with a lot of opportunity, isn't a job, but our nation acts and responds to it and its occupiers as such. If a First Lady opts to do literally nothing, well, she just does; that's her prerogative.
Well OK but what we are talking about is whether FLOTUS is in play for HRC as part of her exceptional resume....correct? If she had been a nobody in the role like Nancy Reagan it would be silly to point out for the most part although you get some standing in meeting with the Gorbachevs and Queen Elizabeth. If not tactical or strategic...at least you have an understanding of their thought process or what they feel is important.
HRC was leading the charge on Healthcare. Did it fail? Yes. Did it lay the groundwork for Ocare, yes. In fact, Nancy's Just Say No has backtracked into pot being widely accepted.
Just my 2 cents. Not "total zeroes" as humans but with a unique possibility to stress any pet topic, those 3 did zilch. Not HRC
Red and off topic:
??? What academic language?
Blue:
Eleven Moments that Define Hillary Clinton
What Is Hillary’s Greatest Accomplishment?
I don't know that I'd say that nobody can remember what Mrs. Clinton has done or accomplished. Some folks may not, however. Others may not have bothered to go find out.
As a private citizen:
- Played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children whose parents cannot provide them with health coverage.
- She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
- She initiated and shepherded the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
- She encouraged older women to seek a mammogram for early detection of breast cancer (which is covered by Medicare) and successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the NIH.
- She created Arkansas's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth.
- She was the chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession.
- She worked to investigate illnesses that were reportedly affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome.
- She created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.
- She is also the first first lady to hold a postgraduate degree.
- She traveled to more countries than any other first lady had at that time.
- Won a Grammy Award.
- She served on the boards of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations.
- She was a law professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
- She was Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
- She was President of the Wellesley Young Republicans.
- She interned at the House Republican Conference.
- She was a distinguished graduate of Yale Law School.
- She was a staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund.
- She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
- She reformed Arkansas' education system.
- She was partner at the Rose Law Firm.
- Twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.
As a U.S. senator from New York:
- She was the first first woman to be elected to this office.
- She was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.
- She took a leading role in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing.
- In November 2012, Secretary of State Clinton brokered a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, effecting a ceasefire.
- After visiting soldiers in Iraq, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain and supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans.
- She was one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act.
- She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
- She served on five Senate committees:
- Committee on Budget (2001–2002)
- Committee on Armed Services (2003–2009)
- Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–2009)
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009)
- Special Committee on Aging.
As Secretary of State:
- She she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act.
I'm sure I've left out things....hopefully you get the idea that you must seek information that doesn't necessarily fall at your feet or that isn't part of pop culture's common awareness. Folks may not know what Mrs. Clinton, a person who's running for President has accomplished, but I'll wager they know who Brad Pitt is married to now and in the past. Now you tell me which information is more worth remembering, and bothering to know in the first place.
- She helped to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation.
- She advocated an expanded role in global economic issues for the State Department and cited the need for an increased U.S. diplomatic presence, especially in Iraq, where the Defense Department had conducted diplomatic missions.
- She unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security program, prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, saved the signing of a Turkish-Armenian accord.
- She served as commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
- She assisted the president with major decisions as to the U.S. position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use military force in Libya.
One may or may not agree -- it's irrelevant, in terms of her experience and accomplishments, whether one does or not -- politically with the aims and outcomes of some or all of what she's done, but what that has nothing to do with the prowess, nature and extent of excellent performance the woman has demonstrated since she was in college. Moreover, all that stuff she's done has imbued her with literally hundreds of lessons learned -- great and small -- from both her (objective) failures and successes, lessons she will bring to bear if/when she becomes President.
And the reason that nobody can recall any of those things when asked is that almost all,assumingf the list is actually accurate--where did you get the cut and paste?--is that almost all were gratuitous because she was married to the Attorney General and then the Governor of Arkansas and later the President of the United States. She apparently did little or nothing if she even showed up at most of those things. EVERY person running for high office has a list of stuff they were involved with in some way. And of course everybody has something they can point to with personal pride. But the proof is in those who work with the person and who testify to their contribution to an effort. Hillary doesn't seem to have anybody who can testify to her efforts, just those who repeat her self-created resume that she did this or did that.
...
I am not going to sit here and make up stuff about anyone. Indeed, and you should know this from my posts, that I make a point of refraining from even making empty accusations about the folks on USMB of whom I have a very low opinion even. That sort of thing just doesn't serve my interests or objectives, and it is beneath my integrity to do. I'm not perfect by any means, but one mistake I do not and will not make is inventing easily checked facts (or anything else).
Do you want to fact check the things I listed? Have at it. Google is your friend. Just copy and paste each one into Google and see what you find, or, where applicable, click on the links I provided in the bulleted points themselves.
I cannot tell you why various individuals cannot remember that she's done the things I noted. Perhaps they would rather not remember? Perhaps they never knew it to begin with, thus not remembering it comes easy to them? I really can't speak for why other individuals could not cite those things.
I think it is because a title or gratuitous honor or self-congratulation is not an accomplishment. For instance Obama's Nobel Prize received very early in his first year in office before he had done ANYTHING noteworthy to have deserved it. But it is on his resume.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
And the reason that nobody can recall any of those things when asked is that almost all,assumingf the list is actually accurate--where did you get the cut and paste?--is that almost all were gratuitous because she was married to the Attorney General and then the Governor of Arkansas and later the President of the United States. She apparently did little or nothing if she even showed up at most of those things. EVERY person running for high office has a list of stuff they were involved with in some way. And of course everybody has something they can point to with personal pride. But the proof is in those who work with the person and who testify to their contribution to an effort. Hillary doesn't seem to have anybody who can testify to her efforts, just those who repeat her self-created resume that she did this or did that.
...
I am not going to sit here and make up stuff about anyone. Indeed, and you should know this from my posts, that I make a point of refraining from even making empty accusations about the folks on USMB of whom I have a very low opinion even. That sort of thing just doesn't serve my interests or objectives, and it is beneath my integrity to do. I'm not perfect by any means, but one mistake I do not and will not make is inventing easily checked facts (or anything else).
Do you want to fact check the things I listed? Have at it. Google is your friend. Just copy and paste each one into Google and see what you find, or, where applicable, click on the links I provided in the bulleted points themselves.
I cannot tell you why various individuals cannot remember that she's done the things I noted. Perhaps they would rather not remember? Perhaps they never knew it to begin with, thus not remembering it comes easy to them? I really can't speak for why other individuals could not cite those things.
I think it is because a title or gratuitous honor or self-congratulation is not an accomplishment. For instance Obama's Nobel Prize received very early in his first year in office before he had done ANYTHING noteworthy to have deserved it. But it is on his resume.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I am not going to sit here and make up stuff about anyone. Indeed, and you should know this from my posts, that I make a point of refraining from even making empty accusations about the folks on USMB of whom I have a very low opinion even. That sort of thing just doesn't serve my interests or objectives, and it is beneath my integrity to do. I'm not perfect by any means, but one mistake I do not and will not make is inventing easily checked facts (or anything else).
Do you want to fact check the things I listed? Have at it. Google is your friend. Just copy and paste each one into Google and see what you find, or, where applicable, click on the links I provided in the bulleted points themselves.
I cannot tell you why various individuals cannot remember that she's done the things I noted. Perhaps they would rather not remember? Perhaps they never knew it to begin with, thus not remembering it comes easy to them? I really can't speak for why other individuals could not cite those things.
I think it is because a title or gratuitous honor or self-congratulation is not an accomplishment. For instance Obama's Nobel Prize received very early in his first year in office before he had done ANYTHING noteworthy to have deserved it. But it is on his resume.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
And we must remember that failure is a sign of doing something also. Clinton did not get her healthcare initiative past but at least she did something in the attempt. Unlike Nancy Reagan who was a total zero unlike Barbara Bush who was a total zero and unlike Laura Bush who also was a total zero.
I would hardly say those women were "total zeroes." That's not fair to them at all. I also don't see it as fair to compare them to anyone else.
Each of us, like those three women, Mrs. Clinton, you, and I, has our accomplishments and they stand or fall on their own, without reference to others. Life isn't a competition to be better than someone one else; it's a journey to be the best one can be as an individual. Those three women didn't choose to pursue public life; Mrs. Clinton did. That is what it is, but it hardly makes those women zeroes.
The opportunity one has as First Lady is unique, agreed? When you have the opportunity do you say and do nothing or do you contribute. HRC contributed as FLOTUS. They did not.
FLOTUS is a role that one acquires by default. One must remember that, so far, men have aspired to be President, not wives who aspire to be FLOTUS. One cannot actively pursue the role of FLOTUS, but a woman who happens to be married to the President will, like it or not, be FLOTUS.
That what those women did hasn't resonated with you doesn't mean they did nothing. It just means you haven't noticed what they did.
P.S./Edit:
Perhaps as FLOTUS, Mrs. Clinton thought she might want to one day be President. If so, it makes sense that she "do more" than had other FLOTUSes before her. Those other women may merely have wanted nothing more than to support their husbands. I don't know. I do know that FLOTUS, while it does present one with a lot of opportunity, isn't a job, but our nation acts and responds to it and its occupiers as such. If a First Lady opts to do literally nothing, well, she just does; that's her prerogative.
Well OK but what we are talking about is whether FLOTUS is in play for HRC as part of her exceptional resume....correct? If she had been a nobody in the role like Nancy Reagan it would be silly to point out for the most part although you get some standing in meeting with the Gorbachevs and Queen Elizabeth. If not tactical or strategic...at least you have an understanding of their thought process or what they feel is important.
HRC was leading the charge on Healthcare. Did it fail? Yes. Did it lay the groundwork for Ocare, yes. In fact, Nancy's Just Say No has backtracked into pot being widely accepted.
Just my 2 cents. Not "total zeroes" as humans but with a unique possibility to stress any pet topic, those 3 did zilch. Not HRC
I am not going to sit here and make up stuff about anyone. Indeed, and you should know this from my posts, that I make a point of refraining from even making empty accusations about the folks on USMB of whom I have a very low opinion even. That sort of thing just doesn't serve my interests or objectives, and it is beneath my integrity to do. I'm not perfect by any means, but one mistake I do not and will not make is inventing easily checked facts (or anything else).
Do you want to fact check the things I listed? Have at it. Google is your friend. Just copy and paste each one into Google and see what you find, or, where applicable, click on the links I provided in the bulleted points themselves.
I cannot tell you why various individuals cannot remember that she's done the things I noted. Perhaps they would rather not remember? Perhaps they never knew it to begin with, thus not remembering it comes easy to them? I really can't speak for why other individuals could not cite those things.
I think it is because a title or gratuitous honor or self-congratulation is not an accomplishment. For instance Obama's Nobel Prize received very early in his first year in office before he had done ANYTHING noteworthy to have deserved it. But it is on his resume.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
I think it is because a title or gratuitous honor or self-congratulation is not an accomplishment. For instance Obama's Nobel Prize received very early in his first year in office before he had done ANYTHING noteworthy to have deserved it. But it is on his resume.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
What did I list that you think she invented as being among her accomplishments and that she didn't actually do?
I think Mrs. Clinton has a modicum of integrity. I don't think hers is the highest level of integrity among the choices we have in this Presidential election cycle...by my reckoning, she falls about in the middle. IMO, Mr. Sanders has demonstrated the highest levels of integrity among the current crop of candidates, followed closely by Mr. Kasich.
Red:
- A title is not an accomplishment. You are correct on that. What one does to earn the title is the accomplishment. I heartily encourage you to investigate which titles Mrs. Clinton has that she did nothing to earn thus making them gratuitous. Give us a bulleted list of them and point us to the sources you queried and that show they are indeed gratuitous.
- What among the listed accomplishments strikes you as self-congratulation?
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
What did I list that you think she invented as being among her accomplishments and that she didn't actually do?
I think Mrs. Clinton has a modicum of integrity. I don't think hers is the highest level of integrity among the choices we have in this Presidential election cycle...by my reckoning, she falls about in the middle. IMO, Mr. Sanders has demonstrated the highest levels of integrity among the current crop of candidates, followed closely by Mr. Kasich.
I would agree re Sanders and Kasich. And it would be their integrity coupled with what IMO are wrong headed views that would keep me from voting for Sanders EVER and puts Kasich lower on my list of preferred candidates than it otherwise would be. (On those 'who is your candidate quizzes' I usually agree with Kasich about 60-70% of the time. With Sanders less than 10% of the time.)
And it would be her apparent, IMO, lack of conviction about ANYTHING but her willingness to pander to whatever constituency, her disingenousness that she expects her audience to swallow without question, and her embellishment of her resume and refusal to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong on her watch that would keep me from voting for Hillary for ANYTHING. She does score a bit higher than Sanders on the 'who is your candidate' quizzes though.
I already gave you one example. Her effort to merit appreciation for her willingness to expose herself to dangerous places, i.e. in Bosnia where she claimed to have had to risk sniper fire as they ran from the aircraft. The media people who were there and ultimately her own staffers said that never happened. I would rather you do your own research to determine if I am right about such things.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
What did I list that you think she invented as being among her accomplishments and that she didn't actually do?
I think Mrs. Clinton has a modicum of integrity. I don't think hers is the highest level of integrity among the choices we have in this Presidential election cycle...by my reckoning, she falls about in the middle. IMO, Mr. Sanders has demonstrated the highest levels of integrity among the current crop of candidates, followed closely by Mr. Kasich.
I would agree re Sanders and Kasich. And it would be their integrity coupled with what IMO are wrong headed views that would keep me from voting for Sanders EVER and puts Kasich lower on my list of preferred candidates than it otherwise would be. (On those 'who is your candidate quizzes' I usually agree with Kasich about 60-70% of the time. With Sanders less than 10% of the time.)
And it would be her apparent, IMO, lack of conviction about ANYTHING but her willingness to pander to whatever constituency, her disingenousness that she expects her audience to swallow without question, and her embellishment of her resume and refusal to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong on her watch that would keep me from voting for Hillary for ANYTHING. She does score a bit higher than Sanders on the 'who is your candidate' quizzes though.
Red:
"Lack of conviction about anything?" You haven't read that litany of bullet points I provided, have you? Read it. When you do, you'll see that there are things that have been on Mrs. Clinton "radar" for the entirety of her adult life. How can you possibly see no unending commitment to anything to the extent that you can say she has a "lack of conviction about ANYTHING?" The only way such a statement seems remotely "make-able" is if one quite simply refuses to look at what the woman has done in her life.
Did I list that as being among her accomplishments? I don't recall listing that.
I'm sure that whatever she did in Bosnia in some way contributes to her overall body of experience, but as a specific accomplishment, I didn't see it as being indicative or more than one aspect of courage, which is something one needs to be President.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
What did I list that you think she invented as being among her accomplishments and that she didn't actually do?
I think Mrs. Clinton has a modicum of integrity. I don't think hers is the highest level of integrity among the choices we have in this Presidential election cycle...by my reckoning, she falls about in the middle. IMO, Mr. Sanders has demonstrated the highest levels of integrity among the current crop of candidates, followed closely by Mr. Kasich.
I would agree re Sanders and Kasich. And it would be their integrity coupled with what IMO are wrong headed views that would keep me from voting for Sanders EVER and puts Kasich lower on my list of preferred candidates than it otherwise would be. (On those 'who is your candidate quizzes' I usually agree with Kasich about 60-70% of the time. With Sanders less than 10% of the time.)
And it would be her apparent, IMO, lack of conviction about ANYTHING but her willingness to pander to whatever constituency, her disingenousness that she expects her audience to swallow without question, and her embellishment of her resume and refusal to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong on her watch that would keep me from voting for Hillary for ANYTHING. She does score a bit higher than Sanders on the 'who is your candidate' quizzes though.
Red:
"Lack of conviction about anything?" You haven't read that litany of bullet points I provided, have you? Read it. When you do, you'll see that there are things that have been on Mrs. Clinton "radar" for the entirety of her adult life. How can you possibly see no unending commitment to anything to the extent that you can say she has a "lack of conviction about ANYTHING?" The only way such a statement seems remotely "make-able" is if one quite simply refuses to look at what the woman has done in her life.
My opinions of Mrs. Clinton are absolutely because I HAVE looked at what the woman has done in her life. Again titles, gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify anybody to be President.
I will say that Mrs. Clinton is consistent on one thing: she favors leftwing causes, loves leftwing people, scorns almost anything or anybody conservative, looks to big government to address everything, and assigns no responsibility, accountability, or trust of any kind to the people.
I would think somebody would need a modicum of integrity to be President though, and would not need to invent a resume in order to be qualified.
What did I list that you think she invented as being among her accomplishments and that she didn't actually do?
I think Mrs. Clinton has a modicum of integrity. I don't think hers is the highest level of integrity among the choices we have in this Presidential election cycle...by my reckoning, she falls about in the middle. IMO, Mr. Sanders has demonstrated the highest levels of integrity among the current crop of candidates, followed closely by Mr. Kasich.
I would agree re Sanders and Kasich. And it would be their integrity coupled with what IMO are wrong headed views that would keep me from voting for Sanders EVER and puts Kasich lower on my list of preferred candidates than it otherwise would be. (On those 'who is your candidate quizzes' I usually agree with Kasich about 60-70% of the time. With Sanders less than 10% of the time.)
And it would be her apparent, IMO, lack of conviction about ANYTHING but her willingness to pander to whatever constituency, her disingenousness that she expects her audience to swallow without question, and her embellishment of her resume and refusal to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong on her watch that would keep me from voting for Hillary for ANYTHING. She does score a bit higher than Sanders on the 'who is your candidate' quizzes though.
Red:
"Lack of conviction about anything?" You haven't read that litany of bullet points I provided, have you? Read it. When you do, you'll see that there are things that have been on Mrs. Clinton "radar" for the entirety of her adult life. How can you possibly see no unending commitment to anything to the extent that you can say she has a "lack of conviction about ANYTHING?" The only way such a statement seems remotely "make-able" is if one quite simply refuses to look at what the woman has done in her life.
My opinions of Mrs. Clinton are absolutely because I HAVE looked at what the woman has done in her life. Again titles, gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify anybody to be President.
I will say that Mrs. Clinton is consistent on one thing: she favors leftwing causes, loves leftwing people, scorns almost anything or anybody conservative, looks to big government to address everything, and assigns no responsibility, accountability, or trust of any kind to the people.
Well, I've asked and have yet to see an answer. Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?"
What did I list that you think she invented as being among her accomplishments and that she didn't actually do?
I think Mrs. Clinton has a modicum of integrity. I don't think hers is the highest level of integrity among the choices we have in this Presidential election cycle...by my reckoning, she falls about in the middle. IMO, Mr. Sanders has demonstrated the highest levels of integrity among the current crop of candidates, followed closely by Mr. Kasich.
I would agree re Sanders and Kasich. And it would be their integrity coupled with what IMO are wrong headed views that would keep me from voting for Sanders EVER and puts Kasich lower on my list of preferred candidates than it otherwise would be. (On those 'who is your candidate quizzes' I usually agree with Kasich about 60-70% of the time. With Sanders less than 10% of the time.)
And it would be her apparent, IMO, lack of conviction about ANYTHING but her willingness to pander to whatever constituency, her disingenousness that she expects her audience to swallow without question, and her embellishment of her resume and refusal to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong on her watch that would keep me from voting for Hillary for ANYTHING. She does score a bit higher than Sanders on the 'who is your candidate' quizzes though.
Red:
"Lack of conviction about anything?" You haven't read that litany of bullet points I provided, have you? Read it. When you do, you'll see that there are things that have been on Mrs. Clinton "radar" for the entirety of her adult life. How can you possibly see no unending commitment to anything to the extent that you can say she has a "lack of conviction about ANYTHING?" The only way such a statement seems remotely "make-able" is if one quite simply refuses to look at what the woman has done in her life.
My opinions of Mrs. Clinton are absolutely because I HAVE looked at what the woman has done in her life. Again titles, gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify anybody to be President.
I will say that Mrs. Clinton is consistent on one thing: she favors leftwing causes, loves leftwing people, scorns almost anything or anybody conservative, looks to big government to address everything, and assigns no responsibility, accountability, or trust of any kind to the people.
Well, I've asked and have yet to see an answer. Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?"
I asked first. What do you see there that qualifies her to be President? When you answer that, I will pick one that I think does not qualify her.
I would agree re Sanders and Kasich. And it would be their integrity coupled with what IMO are wrong headed views that would keep me from voting for Sanders EVER and puts Kasich lower on my list of preferred candidates than it otherwise would be. (On those 'who is your candidate quizzes' I usually agree with Kasich about 60-70% of the time. With Sanders less than 10% of the time.)
And it would be her apparent, IMO, lack of conviction about ANYTHING but her willingness to pander to whatever constituency, her disingenousness that she expects her audience to swallow without question, and her embellishment of her resume and refusal to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong on her watch that would keep me from voting for Hillary for ANYTHING. She does score a bit higher than Sanders on the 'who is your candidate' quizzes though.
Red:
"Lack of conviction about anything?" You haven't read that litany of bullet points I provided, have you? Read it. When you do, you'll see that there are things that have been on Mrs. Clinton "radar" for the entirety of her adult life. How can you possibly see no unending commitment to anything to the extent that you can say she has a "lack of conviction about ANYTHING?" The only way such a statement seems remotely "make-able" is if one quite simply refuses to look at what the woman has done in her life.
My opinions of Mrs. Clinton are absolutely because I HAVE looked at what the woman has done in her life. Again titles, gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify anybody to be President.
I will say that Mrs. Clinton is consistent on one thing: she favors leftwing causes, loves leftwing people, scorns almost anything or anybody conservative, looks to big government to address everything, and assigns no responsibility, accountability, or trust of any kind to the people.
Well, I've asked and have yet to see an answer. Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?"
I asked first. What do you see there that qualifies her to be President? When you answer that, I will pick one that I think does not qualify her.
My answer to that question is the list of bullet point accomplishments (some 100 or so qualifications and I know you know they are there) I've already listed, every accomplishment I listed, excepting the two I already stated are of dubiously classified as "accomplishments," strike me as legit qualifications for her being President. Additionally, she meets each of the Constitutionally stipulated requirements to be eligible for election to the office of POTUS. I can easily see many skills and lessons learned from each of them that will in ways great and small aid her, or anyone having those same credentials, in performing the job of POTUS.
So I ask again:
Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?
Apparently the National Enquirer broke a story about five or six affairs that Ted Cruz presumably had.
I will just refer to the same list you posted. And since you haven'
Red:
"Lack of conviction about anything?" You haven't read that litany of bullet points I provided, have you? Read it. When you do, you'll see that there are things that have been on Mrs. Clinton "radar" for the entirety of her adult life. How can you possibly see no unending commitment to anything to the extent that you can say she has a "lack of conviction about ANYTHING?" The only way such a statement seems remotely "make-able" is if one quite simply refuses to look at what the woman has done in her life.
My opinions of Mrs. Clinton are absolutely because I HAVE looked at what the woman has done in her life. Again titles, gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify anybody to be President.
I will say that Mrs. Clinton is consistent on one thing: she favors leftwing causes, loves leftwing people, scorns almost anything or anybody conservative, looks to big government to address everything, and assigns no responsibility, accountability, or trust of any kind to the people.
Well, I've asked and have yet to see an answer. Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?"
I asked first. What do you see there that qualifies her to be President? When you answer that, I will pick one that I think does not qualify her.
My answer to that question is the list of bullet point accomplishments (some 100 or so qualifications and I know you know they are there) I've already listed, every accomplishment I listed, excepting the two I already stated are of dubiously classified as "accomplishments," strike me as legit qualifications for her being President. Additionally, she meets each of the Constitutionally stipulated requirements to be eligible for election to the office of POTUS. I can easily see many skills and lessons learned from each of them that will in ways great and small aid her, or anyone having those same credentials, in performing the job of POTUS.
So I ask again:
Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?
I will just refer to the same list you posted and suggest several of those things are in no way qualifications to be President and in fact some disqualify her so far as I am concerned. And because I have followed Hillary Clinton's career since at least her husband became AG of Arkansas, I feel justified in my already stated opinions.
But have a pleasant evening. I am off to enjoy mine.
Apparently the National Enquirer broke a story about five or six affairs that Ted Cruz presumably had.
ROTFL!!!
A better way of putting that is "The National Enquirer wrote that..."
- "Apparently?" Either they did or did not write a story about Mr. Cruz having had one or several extramarital affairs. Jesus, have you so little faith in your ability to discern whether that simple fact is so that you have to preface your statement with "apparently?"
- Saying that organization "broke a story" is like saying Chicken Little was a meteorologist.
I will just refer to the same list you posted. And since you haven'
My opinions of Mrs. Clinton are absolutely because I HAVE looked at what the woman has done in her life. Again titles, gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify anybody to be President.
I will say that Mrs. Clinton is consistent on one thing: she favors leftwing causes, loves leftwing people, scorns almost anything or anybody conservative, looks to big government to address everything, and assigns no responsibility, accountability, or trust of any kind to the people.
Well, I've asked and have yet to see an answer. Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?"
I asked first. What do you see there that qualifies her to be President? When you answer that, I will pick one that I think does not qualify her.
My answer to that question is the list of bullet point accomplishments (some 100 or so qualifications and I know you know they are there) I've already listed, every accomplishment I listed, excepting the two I already stated are of dubiously classified as "accomplishments," strike me as legit qualifications for her being President. Additionally, she meets each of the Constitutionally stipulated requirements to be eligible for election to the office of POTUS. I can easily see many skills and lessons learned from each of them that will in ways great and small aid her, or anyone having those same credentials, in performing the job of POTUS.
So I ask again:
Of the stuff I listed in those bullet points, which of them specifically do you believe are "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?
I will just refer to the same list you posted and suggest several of those things are in no way qualifications to be President and in fact some disqualify her so far as I am concerned. And because I have followed Hillary Clinton's career since at least her husband became AG of Arkansas, I feel justified in my already stated opinions.
But have a pleasant evening. I am off to enjoy mine.
Red:
So, you are incapable or unwilling to identify which of the bullet points listed qualify, in your mind as being:
You are the one who's categorized "several of those things" as falling into those categories. It doesn't take more than a simple copy and paste to identify which ones do fit those three descriptions. I didn't ask you to state why any of the remarks fit any such categories; I did ask you merely to identify which ones are in those categories. Surely you can stand behind your assertions to the extent of at the very least identifying which among the list of accomplishments I listed fit your three qualitative categories.
- "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric?"
- "in no way qualifications to be President?
- ones that "disqualify her" for that position?
Blue:
It seems to me that it, by your reticence to identify which among Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments I listed that you feel fit the three categories you identified that it is you, not Mrs. Clinton, who "lacks conviction" My belief to that effect is further bolstered by your qualifying what is a simple assertion about what the National Enquirer did or did not write with the couching term "apparently." Indeed it is now that we see it is the "pot that calls the kettle black."
it was the National Enquirer that broke the story of the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers affair. And it was all true. Both she and he confirmed it.
