"Defiant Hillary Clinton says no apology for emails needed: ‘What I did was allowed’

  • Thread starter Thread starter grotto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CaptFun said:
I recently abstained in my state’s Gubernatorial election. It killed me to do so … but we had two champions of a non-negotiable for “choices” (pun intended) and I decided since I couldn’t vote against both of them, I could at least not vote for either. It seemed better than voting for one of them (and then you’ve voted for the non-negotiable to some extent) … or supporting the lesser of two evils and hoping that one would be more likely to convert or be pressured by their “otherwise better on the matter” party … to do the right thing. It’s a tough call.
… “What I did was allowed”.
Click to expand...
No matter what side of the divide you are on, when you don’t vote [or vote for a third party candidate], you are helping the candidate who are further away from your personal position on the issues. “Sending a message” is nothing more than a counter-productive flight of fancy.
 
unstoppable_II said:
No matter what side of the divide you are on, when you don’t vote [or vote for a third party candidate], you are helping the candidate who are further away from your personal position on the issues. “Sending a message” is nothing more than a counter-productive flight of fancy.
Click to expand...

I’m familiar with that position. And consider it when my objections to the “better” of the “two evils” is merely at the “hold my nose” stage.

We may still disagree on this but … my non-voting in that particular race was rather just another “lesser of two evils” choice. Did my non-voting really, as you propose, help the candidate who was “further away from my personal position”? OR did it support a superior position that “it is not acceptable to me to have two evils as my choices”. In fact to the point that … I will not endorse an “evil candidate” in my party on a party loyalty basis. Yes, I would rather have them lose (thereby doing my little part to kill the cynical presumption that I WOULD vote “even against my most deeply held personal positions” because -
:hey_bud: - What’s he gonna DO? Vote for _______ < the other party?
Click to expand...
JOIN the other party? :pshaw: - pfft!
Click to expand...
When the issues are less than non-negotiable I feel differently. I knew people (otherwise like me) who would not vote for Romney (because he was Mormon !) < in their view … "part of a cult … " and so … they abstained! Were there enough of such to have swung the 2012 election?

In THAT case I voted for Romney and with my (current anyway) party. But I would not have – had he not publicly repudiated his former position on the very non-negotiable issue that convinced me to abstain in that ONE area of my 2014 ballot.

As it was Romney was not completely pro-life (my main non-negotiable), but enough to merit my support … though I preferred others < (NOT third party candidates or others by November 2012 though).

The old " … if a camel gets his nose into the tent (the rest of him will follow)" adage guides me – per resisting the tent getting TOO big and allowing in nonsense that makes the value of my vote even MORE diminished. I don’t want THAT … in … my … house. Or country … but first things first.

Discerning whether a vote for “other than one believes in”

– amounts to the “virtue” of pragmatism

– or the “soft betrayal” of being apathetic in battling a moral imperative (evil)

would seem to allow abstaining from association with evils. Especially if one reasoned that the compromise would not be a “one time aberration” – but possibly empowering a “future of no real choices” on an imperative matter.
“Sending a message” is nothing more than a counter-productive flight of fancy.
Click to expand...
IF the message is never listened to, it might be a flight of fancy (I’d put it more like ‘making the best of a bad situation"). But counter-productive? Being more counter-productive than sanctioning pro-aborts’ rise to high office is a high bar. If it is not as productive as voting for a good candidate (not an option sometimes) … I’d still call it counter-counter productive. Maybe a retreat of sorts, but staunchly denying a surrender.
 
CaptFun said:
I’m familiar with that position. And consider it when my objections to the “better” of the “two evils” is merely at the “hold my nose” stage.

We may still disagree on this but … my non-voting in that particular race was rather just another “lesser of two evils” choice. Did my non-voting really, as you propose, help the candidate who was “further away from my personal position”? OR did it support a superior position that “it is not acceptable to me to have two evils as my choices”. In fact to the point that … I will not endorse an “evil candidate” in my party on a party loyalty basis. Yes, I would rather have them lose (thereby doing my little part to kill the cynical presumption that I WOULD vote “even against my most deeply held personal positions” because -

When the issues are less than non-negotiable I feel differently. I knew people (otherwise like me) who would not vote for Romney (because he was Mormon !) < in their view … "part of a cult … " and so … they abstained! Were there enough of such to have swung the 2012 election?

In THAT case I voted for Romney and with my (current anyway) party. But I would not have – had he not publicly repudiated his former position on the very non-negotiable issue that convinced me to abstain in that ONE area of my 2014 ballot.

As it was Romney was not completely pro-life (my main non-negotiable), but enough to merit my support … though I preferred others < (NOT third party candidates or others by November 2012 though).

The old " … if a camel gets his nose into the tent (the rest of him will follow)" adage guides me – per resisting the tent getting TOO big and allowing in nonsense that makes the value of my vote even MORE diminished. I don’t want THAT … in … my … house. Or country … but first things first.

Discerning whether a vote for “other than one believes in”

– amounts to the “virtue” of pragmatism

– or the “soft betrayal” of being apathetic in battling a moral imperative (evil)

would seem to allow abstaining from association with evils. Especially if one reasoned that the compromise would not be a “one time aberration” – but possibly empowering a “future of no real choices” on an imperative matter.

IF the message is never listened to, it might be a flight of fancy (I’d put it more like ‘making the best of a bad situation"). But counter-productive? Being more counter-productive than sanctioning pro-aborts’ rise to high office is a high bar. If it is not as productive as voting for a good candidate (not an option sometimes) … I’d still call it counter-counter productive. Maybe a retreat of sorts, but staunchly denying a surrender.
Click to expand...
Assume two candidates, A and B. Assume also B is further way from your position than A is.

Case 1, you vote
A ends up with x votes
B ends up with y votes

Case 2, you do not vote
A ends up with x-1 votes
B ends up with y votes

By denying a vote for A, you have helped B.

Case 3, you vote for a third party
How they end up depends on how many votes move from x and y over to z [yours will be one of them].
 
Lily_Bernans said:
He is the only person in politics I actually know. My parents were diplomats, that’s how we know him. In person, he’s likable, friendly, and extremely down-to-earth. He actually does keep promises, personal ones, at least. He offered to help me get a job as an editor at a big New York publishing house, and two days later, I had the job. He asked for nothing in return, by the way! He does have a LOT of personal charisma, something many candidates today lack. I’m not at all puzzled by his popularity. Remember many Americans DO believe in divorce, abortion, etc., so see nothing wrong with a liberal president who does. (I do not believe in those things, just making a point.) The fact that he is “the” political rock star does not surprise me. He will have a drink or coffee with “the man on the street,” and he played a round of golf with me. (This was long after his presidency, of course.)

We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but he’s no worse than most, and he did balance the budget. His health care plan was better than Obama’s. I DO believe everyone should have healthcare, but I don’t like the way Obamacare is set up.

The idealistic candidate, e.g., keeps promises, does not believe in divorce or abortion, is very conservative, never lies, etc. is not going to be found. We have to make do with the least terrible among the bad. Nothing really changes much.
Click to expand...
BC allowed nuclear secrets to be sold to China for campaign contributions. He has been charged with rape by at least three women, to complement his many simple sexual assaults. He (and Hillary) charge confiscatory rates to businesses and colleges for speeches which say nothing. Quid pro quo? The list against Bubba is endless, but that’s enough. And, thanks to the dot.com bubble and the GOP Congress, he and they balanced the budget in theory. But he implemented the Carter-era housing giveaways with a vengeance, and we all know now how we all have paid for that! :cool: Rob
 
CaptFun said:
It was a better call than America’s … looking back.

And forth! to now!- :eek:
Click to expand...
No, Obama has unified America, and his reputation as a political messiah has been validated by countless successes, (including the lowering of sea levels!). :bowdown2: :hypno:
 
RACJ said:
BC allowed nuclear secrets to be sold to China for campaign contributions. He has been charged with rape by at least three women, to complement his many simple sexual assaults. He (and Hillary) charge confiscatory rates to businesses and colleges for speeches which say nothing. Quid pro quo? The list against Bubba is endless, but that’s enough. And, thanks to the dot.com bubble and the GOP Congress, he and they balanced the budget in theory. But he implemented the Carter-era housing giveaways with a vengeance, and we all know now how we all have paid for that! :cool: Rob
Click to expand...
Much less significant than these … but still of note.

Back when he was in power …, he somehow didn’t have the clout to get Monica Lewinsky a job at Revlon (and out of his hair). Apparently he’s learned SOMETHING since his White House days (presuming that the job he helped Lily Bernans get was later than the WH years). Or did he just have a much more employable person to work with then?

Not enough clout to get Monica a job … not enough class to buy her a new dress when he ruined hers. :hmmm:Or was that himself.

And maybe … a new “Clinton Era” looms?!

🤷 … no apology needed

I guess.
 
CaptFun said:
Much less significant than these … but still of note.

Back when he was in power …, he somehow didn’t have the clout to get Monica Lewinsky a job at Revlon (and out of his hair). Apparently he’s learned SOMETHING since his White House days (presuming that the job he helped Lily Bernans get was later than the WH years). Or did he just have a much more employable person to work with then?

Not enough clout to get Monica a job … not enough class to buy her a new dress when he ruined hers. :hmmm:Or was that himself.

And maybe … a new “Clinton Era” looms?!

🤷 … no apology needed

I guess.
Click to expand...
I’m biased, of course, but I would say I was much more employable than Monica.😃 I could have gotten the job myself, but (1) it would have taken longer, (2) I would have had to start as a junior editor, not a senior, and (3) I would have had to accept much less money. So Bill’s recommendation was well worth it.

I honestly don’t think Hillary will even get the nomination. She doesn’t have Bill’s charisma.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
He is the only person in politics I actually know. My parents were diplomats, that’s how we know him. In person, he’s likable, friendly, and extremely down-to-earth. He actually does keep promises, personal ones, at least. He offered to help me get a job as an editor at a big New York publishing house, and two days later, I had the job. He asked for nothing in return, by the way! He does have a LOT of personal charisma, something many candidates today lack. I’m not at all puzzled by his popularity. Remember many Americans DO believe in divorce, abortion, etc., so see nothing wrong with a liberal president who does. (I do not believe in those things, just making a point.) The fact that he is “the” political rock star does not surprise me. He will have a drink or coffee with “the man on the street,” and he played a round of golf with me. (This was long after his presidency, of course.)

We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but he’s no worse than most, and he did balance the budget. His health care plan was better than Obama’s. I DO believe everyone should have healthcare, but I don’t like the way Obamacare is set up.

The idealistic candidate, e.g., keeps promises, does not believe in divorce or abortion, is very conservative, never lies, etc. is not going to be found. We have to make do with the least terrible among the bad. Nothing really changes much.
Click to expand...
I’m glad it worked out for you. I had the opposite experience. Back when Clinton was president I was counseling at a crisis pregnancy center . We mostly dealt with teenagers and you can imagine the difficulty of trying to counsel these young women about the perils of getting involved with older men and engaging in premarital sex when Bill Clinton was president

We, of course, will never find a candidate who is perfect in every way. But we most certainly should be able to agree ,as Catholics,that any candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand is unfit to be president of United States or to be honest holding any other elected office.
 
Bill is a born politician, very capable. He adapted quite well to having a GOP congress and built a record. Bill was smart enough to turn GOP victories into his own. Just contrast this with how Obama has engaged with the opposition. Too bad Bill was such a male whore.

Question, is there any actual investigation underway on influence buying via donations to the Clinton Foundation? This is what speaks to the real corruption and why Hills should not be President.
 
estesbob said:
Especially for a Party that complains about a war on women!
Click to expand...
The Dems have no problem with objectifying women because the straight feminists objectify men, while the gay feminists objectify women too.
 
Which Clinton said the following: “What I did was allowed”?

a. Bill
b. Hil
c. All of the above
 
phil19034 said:
The Dems have no problem with objectifying women because the straight feminists objectify men, while the gay feminists objectify women too.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Democrats and Republicans can be compartmentalized like that. I know good and bad in both parties.
 
estesbob said:
I’m glad it worked out for you. I had the opposite experience. Back when Clinton was president I was counseling at a crisis pregnancy center . We mostly dealt with teenagers and you can imagine the difficulty of trying to counsel these young women about the perils of getting involved with older men and engaging in premarital sex when Bill Clinton was president

We, of course, will never find a candidate who is perfect in every way. But we most certainly should be able to agree ,as Catholics,that any candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand is unfit to be president of United States or to be honest holding any other elected office.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t support abortion, and it doesn’t matter what political party the person belongs to. I don’t think any candidate who wants to restrict health care, including dental care, to anyone, regardless of income is fit to be president, either. Or anyone who believes in tax breaks for the rich. See why I have trouble supporting anyone? 🤷
 
Lily_Bernans said:
No, I don’t support abortion, and it doesn’t matter what political party the person belongs to. I don’t think any candidate who wants to restrict health care, including dental care, to anyone, regardless of income is fit to be president, either. Or anyone who believes in tax breaks for the rich. See why I have trouble supporting anyone? 🤷
Click to expand...
What good is healthcare and more, in your opinion, equable taxation to those who are denied the right to life .?
 
estesbob said:
What good is healthcare and more, in your opinion, equable taxation to those who are denied the right to life .?
Click to expand...
What point is there in basing your vote on a single issue that is beyond the power of the President to change?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
What point is there in basing your vote on a single issue …
Click to expand...
There are other issues, it is true, like federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot fetish in Florida, but some are higher than others. Slavery was the issue in 1860. Why do you want to deny someone the right to prioritize the issues and vote accordingly?
… that is beyond the power of the President to change?
Click to expand...
It has zero zip zilch none nada chances of being changed with a liberal president, but some chance with a conservative. It’s called leadership.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
What point is there in basing your vote on a single issue that is beyond the power of the President to change?
Click to expand...
You don’t base your vote n a single issue. A Catholic does not have to vote for someone if they are pro-life. He just can not vote for them if they are not. This is because the Church recognizes that right to life is the most fundamental right a human has.

And a President can do a lot to further or limit abortionFor instance Obamas first act after becoming President was to repeal the Mexico City policy ,allowing US dollars to once more flow to oversea abortion providers. A Democrat President will likewise fight to keep funding going to PP and other abortion providers.

We also need to realize that supporting abortion does not happen in a vacuum. Do we really want someone leading our country who believes it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to pay someone to kill her child? Such a callous disregard for life will obviously taint other decisions they make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top