New York Times Endorsement

[Tom Wetmore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Go ahead and read it,  the whole thing.  I dare you...

[Geoarrge]

Fairly predictable for the NYT.

[bonnie]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Go ahead and read it,  the whole thing.  I dare you...

Most of us have had more "daring" dares given to us as small children.  

[bonnie]

I am not about to give NYT a dime for their "daring" news. I am not paying to subscribe

I did check other sources to see what might have been said.

This I found especially funny..........The editorial -- which will appear in print on Sunday, the day before the first presidential debate -- emphasizes national security and cites Clinton's experience as secretary of state in saying she is better qualified to shape US foreign policy than her GOP challenger.

The soothsaying of NYT is not convincing to a great many people. Her idea of shaping US foreign policy is what a lot of people fear.

While Hillary supporters don't find anything alarming about the e-mail controversy,others do.  There isn't any excuse for this to have happened. None whatsoever. Hillary Clinton ran off at the mouth condemning the e-mail controversy of Bush. She was not a stranger to how e-mails should be handled. As her experience and intelligence is often spoken of so highly please explain if you can.

How did this highly intelligent woman of experience claim ignorance of classified material? How many classified e-mails were destroyed by her aides after being told to preserve everything pertaining to the investigation. Is this why several of her aides demanded immunity before they testify? As an attorney she should not have to be told. Ignorance or deliberate?

How does this highly intelligent woman forget 2 dozen security briefings,among those briefings,handling classified information? Ignorance or a lie?

Now it appears the most transparent President communicated with Clinton via this private e-mail he  used to communicate with her. Our commander clueless claims to have not known until he heard it on the news.

If she is as clueless as she claims she is to ignorant to be elected president. If she is just plain dishonest as more and more people believe she is, she should not be elected president .

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Some comment about predictable responses comes to memory...  

[bonnie]

17 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Some comment about predictable responses comes to memory...  

You seem to be unable to answer fairly simple questions so yes I agree with your comment. 1. Should a person that is supposed to have such a out standing intellect and experience have known what the letter C stood for?  Having ripped into Bush for his email controversy can she now claim ignorance and be telling the truth?As an attorney should she have known what "preserve all information" meant? Or can she use the example you gave that "that disposing of information" she was told to preserve didn"t mean anything?.Why would it be necessary for several of her aides to demand immunity before answering any questions? Why would Obama claim he became aware of this when he heard it on the news after using a fake name to communicate with her on a server he didn"t know existed?  What is so earhshaking about the NYT article that you feel the need to "dare" others to read it? What is so compelling about a Huffington article, totally biased and in the tank liberal that it should be taken as gospel?

[Tom Wetmore]

The dare is simply that it is readily apparent by yours and others persistent false claims and even the questions you are asking now that you seem to ignore, or refuse to read or watch, or disbelieve if you do, anything other than Fox News, Drudge Report,  and many of the even more extreme right wing propagandists.  My assumption by your  usual disparagement of any so called mainstream media as having a liberal bias, that you would not willingly read the NY Times for anything.  Contrary to what seems to be your perception of a bias, the objectivity and journalistic integrity of most of that so called mainstream media far exceeds Fox, Drudge,  or any of the self-identified conservative media.  

I would broaden that "dare" to suggest that you spend some seriously equivalent time reading (equivalent time to what you spend on the numerous right wing websites) those so called mainstream media, such as the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, etc.  And spend as much time watching the news on NBC, CBS or ABC as you do watching Fox.  And if you listen to any conservative talk radio, spend an equal amount of time listening to NPR news coverage.  On that latter source, studies have shown unequivocally that listeners of NPR have a far better knowledge of current events than anyone else.  And regular Fox News watchers have the lowest level of knowledge of basic current events, even worse than people who watch, listen to, or read no news at all. That is why I challenge everyone here to seriously broaden their news sources.

 

If you don't, you are quite simply misinformed about both Trump and Clinton,their positions, and the real issues, and not informed at all on many important things.  Much of what you repeatedly post tends to confirm that.

[Geoarrge]

If I want to broaden my news sources, I'll check the BBC and Pravda. Or other foreign outlets.

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The dare is simply that it is readily apparent by yours and others persistent false claims and even the questions you are asking now that you seem to ignore, or refuse to read or watch, or disbelieve if you do, anything other than Fox News, Drudge Report,  and many of the even more extreme right wing propagandists.  My assumption by your  usual disparagement of any so called mainstream media as having a liberal bias, that you would not willingly read the NY Times for anything.  Contrary to what seems to be your perception of a bias, the objectivity and journalistic integrity of most of that so called mainstream media far exceeds Fox, Drudge,  or any of the self-identified conservative media.  

I keep asking because you keep refusing to answer some very simple questions. I don't have the almost religious fervor  you seem to have to defend any of the other candidates.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I would broaden that "dare" to suggest that you spend some seriously equivalent time reading (equivalent time to what you spend on the numerous right wing websites) those so called mainstream media, such as the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, etc.  And spend as much time watching the news on NBC, CBS or ABC as you do watching Fox.  And if you listen to any conservative talk radio, spend an equal amount of time listening to NPR news coverage.  On that latter source, studies have shown unequivocally that listeners of NPR have a far better knowledge of current events than anyone else.  And regular Fox News watchers have the lowest level of knowledge of basic current events, even worse than people who watch, listen to, or read no news at all. That is why I challenge everyone here to seriously broaden their news sources.

Your dare is meaningless to me as I  have not listened to or watched Fox News,Hannity,Limbaugh in at least 2 years.. NYT I refuse to pay for after I have read 10 articles in a month. I do watch our local news and CBS world news . Yes,I read Drudge. 

I am far more interested in reading what Hillary Clinton said rather than paying NYT to put their spin on her own words. If I felt the need to justify a support for Trump to a religious fervor pitch then I would be more interested in following up on "his sins". That is the difference.

The only reason I cannot say for an absolute certainty that I am going to skip voting this year is because I have always believed a person should vote. It is a tough decision.

Some choose to vote third party as a protest vote. That is their decision but I am not going to waste my time going to the election hall to do that.  I would vote for a potted plant before Hillary Clinton. Not sure if I can hold my breath long enough to vote Trump.

 

 

 

[bonnie]

The answers to the questions I have asked you are really very simple.

!. Should  someone that has been a senator and Secretary of State know the letter C designated classified?

She is either lying or ignorant and incompetent?

2. After lambasting Bush for that email controversy how would it be possible for Clinton to not understand the ramifications?

3.After a subpoena and an order to preserve all documents how does an attorney in ignorance allow it to be destroyed?

4. What reason would our transparent president have to deny knowledge and claim once again he heard it on the news when the rest of us did?

Is she clueless or a liar? I don't care how insignificant you believe this to be,is she lying or ignorant?

The first time I listened to her she was lying and regardless of your desire to have others see her as this honest paragon of virtue I don't see any change.

The interviewer had to have known she was lying as did most of the country as she blamed a vast right wing conspiracy for her husband's reputation as a human tomcat. Her supporters got all warm and fuzzy as she lied so convincingly ,standing by her man. 

One thing to be a loyal if misguided wife,quite another to blame everyone else for his behavior. That in part got him to the white house and she did it again to keep him there. Very practised and convincing

[Geoarrge]

 

[bonnie]

Don't you think it is somewhat unfair to use Hillary Clinton's own words instead of the spin from the NYT ? (TIC)

[Tom Wetmore]

Wildly spinning the accusation of spinning...  

[bonnie]

52 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Wildly spinning the accusation of spinning...  

The answers to simple questions really don't require any spinning.

There is only one of two answers that can be given,which do you believe. No spininning

The answers to the questions I have asked you are really very simple.

!. Should  someone that has been a senator and Secretary of State know the letter C designated classified?

Is she lying or incompetent??

2. After lambasting Bush for that email controversy how would it be possible for Clinton to not understand the ramifications

3.After a subpoena and an order to preserve all documents how does an attorney in ignorance allow it to be destroyed?

4. What reason would our transparent president have to deny knowledge and claim once again he heard it on the news when the rest of us did?

 

[Tom Wetmore]

On September 25, 2016 at 4:34 PM, bonnie said:

The answers to the questions I have asked you are really very simple.

!. Should  someone that has been a senator and Secretary of State know the letter C designated classified?

She is either lying or ignorant and incompetent?

2. After lambasting Bush for that email controversy how would it be possible for Clinton to not understand the ramifications?

3.After a subpoena and an order to preserve all documents how does an attorney in ignorance allow it to be destroyed?

4. What reason would our transparent president have to deny knowledge and claim once again he heard it on the news when the rest of us did?

Is she clueless or a liar? I don't care how insignificant you believe this to be,is she lying or ignorant?

The first time I listened to her she was lying and regardless of your desire to have others see her as this honest paragon of virtue I don't see any change.

The interviewer had to have known she was lying as did most of the country as she blamed a vast right wing conspiracy for her husband's reputation as a human tomcat. Her supporters got all warm and fuzzy as she lied so convincingly ,standing by her man. 

One thing to be a loyal if misguided wife,quite another to blame everyone else for his behavior. That in part got him to the white house and she did it again to keep him there. Very practised and convincing

I am absolutely certain that no matter what I say to answer your questions, it will do nothing to persuade you are anyone else so determinedly against Hillary to change their mind. 

But here goes anyway...

 1. Not necessarily.  It is more complicated than you have framed it.  And it was not totally a matter of being any one of the 3 choices you have limited it to. When she and anyone else has routinely and frequently reviewed properly marked classified documents that have  been clearly and prominently marked with cover sheets, classification  headers, boldly stamped words, etc., reading anything without any of that would not alert a reader that this should be viewed as having any classified information in it.  It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a document with only a letter "c" at the begining of a paragraph meant something else.  If such a abbreviated mark appears in a document with the header, it is intended to signal that that particular paragraph is the one that specifically contains the classified information. It is a common fact that documents that are classified, also contain unclassified information. Sometimes most of the document is unclassified information.  That part of the classification system is a way of distinguishing parts that are classified from unclassified information that may be in the document.  If for some reason that document is officially released, that paragraph can be easily redacted allowing the unclassified parts to be released. And sometimes officials will send a letter or memo, or prepare a document about unclassified information and intentionally include one single sentence that is classified, so that the whole document has to be marked and treated as classified, trying to protect the rest from disclosure.

2. I don't recall that it was or has been Hillary doing the lambasting of Bush.  Not sure what you are referring to or more importantly, what your point is.

3. Likewise, I really don't know what you are referring to.  Mistakes do happen.  Not intentional. And intent is a very a very real part of the equation.  It is not at all uncommon for lawyers or anyone else for that matter, and their employees processing huge volumes of  documents, literally thousands of pages, to miss something, lose documents or even inadvertently put documents in the wrong place where it now become very difficult to find again.  No ill motive.  Just a mistake.

4. Also not really sure what that is about.  But I'll hazard a guess.  Why is that so strange?  Does he have to have only one source or one channel of information?  Is he omnipotent or even expected to be?  What is so strange about him getting information for the first time from the news as an event is unfolding?  Why would it be at all unusual that news reporters be on the scene along with first responders, before higher up officials have been brought up to speed I what is actually happening?

[bonnie]

50 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I

 

2. I don't recall that it was or has been Hillary doing the lambasting of Bush.  Not sure what you are referring to or more importantly, what your point is.

 

http://rare.us/story/watch-hillary-clinton-bash-bushs-secret-email-in-2007/

 

Hllary Clinton has claimed it was only a mistake. Should she have known the ramifications of her private email being used in the manner it was. She certainly seemed to know in 2007

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I am absolutely certain that no matter what I say to answer your questions, it will do nothing to persuade you are anyone else so determinedly against Hillary to change their mind. 

But here goes anyway...

 1. Not necessarily.  It is more complicated than you have framed it.  And it was not totally a matter of being any one of the 3 choices you have limited it to. When she and anyone else has routinely and frequently reviewed properly marked classified documents that have  been clearly and prominently marked with cover sheets, classification  headers, boldly stamped words, etc., reading anything without any of that would not alert a reader that this should be viewed as having any classified information in it.  It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a document with only a letter "c" at the begining of a paragraph meant something else.  If such a abbreviated mark appears in a document with the header, it is intended to signal that that particular paragraph is the one that specifically contains the classified information. It is a common fact that documents that are classified, also contain unclassified information. Sometimes most of the document is unclassified information.  That part of the classification system is a way of distinguishing parts that are classified from unclassified information that may be in the document.  If for some reason that document is officially released, that paragraph can be easily redacted allowing the unclassified parts to be released. And sometimes officials will send a letter or memo, or prepare a document about unclassified information and intentionally include one single sentence that is classified, so that the whole document has to be marked and treated as classified, trying to protect the rest from disclosure.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

 

What is unreasonable is to believe this highly experienced politician was unaware of the rules

[bonnie]

If you claim you  don't know or can't recall important aspects of your job dozens of times you are either incompetent to hold that job or you are lying.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/02/the-many-things-hillary-clinton-couldnt-recall-in-her-fbi-interview/

 

In the three hours-plus that Hillary Clinton spoke with FBI investigators about her private email server on July 2, she cited more than three-dozen things that she could not recall.

Among them were things such as specific emails that perhaps nobody could be expected to remember years later, but Clinton also said she had no recollection of several key moments when it came to her email server, including briefings on how to handle classified information and key conversations about her server.

In at least one case, according to documents released Friday by the FBI, Clinton said she could not recall every briefing she had received after a 2012 concussion, which later led to a blood clot in her head.

"Clinton stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from [the] State [Department] during the transition out of her role as secretary of state in 2013," the report says. "However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."

The language doesn't make clear whether Clinton was blaming her concussion for being unable to recall specific briefings and, if so, during which specific time period. The concussion and blood clot were well-publicized at the time.

Among the other things Clinton could "not recall" or "did not remember," according to the summary of her interview with the FBI:

• a briefing or training given by the State Department on the retention of federal records or handling of classified information
• how often she used her Original Classification Authority (OCA) or any training or guidance that State Department provided on that
• any specific briefing on handling classified information associated with Special Access Programs (SAP)
• a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike
• why the State Department was unable to provide her with a secure BlackBerry
• receiving any emails she thought didn't belong on an unclassified system
• receiving guidance from the State Department about the email policies contained in the Foreign Affairs Manual
• specifically which aides had access to her BlackBerry and email accounts
• the compromise of State Department employees' Gmail accounts
• ever using an iPad mini until after her time as secretary of state
• receiving any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to her email
• who advised her to change her email address after Sidney Blumenthal's email account was compromised in 2013

Share via Email

 

 

 

[CoAspen]

The email issue of HC has become the Holy Grail of the 'dislikers'.....really...is that the reason she shouldn't be pres? Concrete plans, layed out for all to see, like or dislike, open about taxes, has vast amounts of experience, etc, etc all of which seems to be ignored. 

On the opposite side....no plans, hide tax results, no experience, displays his true thoughts about women with such remarks as 'she has no stamina, can't stands up to long discussions', along with other remarks about the abilities of women, always blaming someone, 'poor me the media is picking on me', etc, etc.

Reminds me of the term used in the music industry when describing music artists with only one hit, never more to be heard from, 'One Hit wonders'! Perfectly describes the email issue!!

[bonnie]

44 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

The email issue of HC has become the Holy Grail of the 'dislikers'.....really...is that the reason she shouldn't be pres? Concrete plans, layed out for all to see, like or dislike, open about taxes, has vast amounts of experience, etc, etc all of which seems to be ignored. 

On the opposite side....no plans, hide tax results, no experience, displays his true thoughts about women with such remarks as 'she has no stamina, can't stands up to long discussions', along with other remarks about the abilities of women, always blaming someone, 'poor me the media is picking on me', etc, etc.

Reminds me of the term used in the music industry when describing music artists with only one hit, never more to be heard from, 'One Hit wonders'! Perfectly describes the email issue!!

Difference of opinion.Some see the inability to remember important aspects concerning your job to be a problem,not just involving e-mails. 3 dozen "I don't remember " would get you fired from a menial job,not promoted.

I worked a part time job for years for a home improvement company. Very menial.unimportant job as this goes. We frequently had morning staff meetings. This was for changes, to explain how certain duties were to be performed etc. If anyone was being questioned by management to explain their behavior or lack of following instructions and explained we didn't remember, we would have been told to forget to come back.

 

This is almost funny

no experience, displays his true thoughts about women with such remarks as 'she has no stamina, can't stands up to long discussions', along with other remarks about the abilities of women, always blaming someone, 'poor me the media is picking on me', etc, etc.

 

Hillary has blamed someone else for as long as she has been prominent in the news.  This holier than thou response concerning women was not a factor when both many women and men rolled their eyes at her husband's behavior and basically said,that is his private life. Now out of dislike for Trump it is "Oh,that's right,we are concerned about attitudes towards women". Nor was it a factor when Hillary as a woman,wife and mother lied and blamed everyone else,knowing absolutely her husband was guilty, and called all the women liars.

has vast amounts of experience, etc, etc all of which seems to be ignored. 

A vast amount of experience where you forget over 3 dozen times and claim to not know the rules really is not impressive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

   always blaming someone, 'poor me the media is picking on me', etc, etc.

 

This has been Hillary Clinton's song since her husband was running for president the first time. For decades this "poor" woman has been lied about and persecuted by hundred's.

Never at fault for anything,"just a mistake on her part or she doesn't remember" so the only logical course for that is to promote her to the presidency."

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

Hypocrisy:  Thy name is politics.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, bonnie said:

always blaming someone, 'poor me the media is picking on me', etc, etc

The Donald has done his fair share of whining about media bias as well.

[bonnie]

8 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

The Donald has done his fair share of whining about media bias as well.

That is absolutely true. So why condemn one and give the other a pass? I wasn't the one that brought up Clinton's whine for decades.

I am not defending Trump,if I had my choice I would have them both disappear. I am not trying to make Trump this persecuted saint to justify voting for him if in fact I do. 

For every issue I have with one I have a similar with the other. With one exception,Clinton was a experienced politician when she claimed not to know the rules and can't remember 3 dozen times. As Secretary of State that is scary if true and just as bad if a lie.

I don't need to read the NYT spin on why it is really okay.  It isn't the hypocrisy of either candidate that I find hard to take,it is the hypocrisy of supporters.  I recently had to remove something from my facebook page that disturbed a lot of people. One that is quick to condemn any he thinks is judging another felt qualified to label all that vote for Trump are really closet bullies.The objections was not only from Trump supporters. I see those that I believe are bullies here that support Clinton. They do it by arrogance and patronizing those they consider less bright than they are as obviously if you were on their level you would agree with them.

For those willing to acknowledge the character of both candidates it is a tough election.

Condemning Trump for blaming others is the height of hypocrisy if giving Clinton a pass after decades without a word of complaint. I can't recall one controversy she has been involved in that she has taken full responsibility without the "But they did"

If I give Hillary Clinton a pass,then it would stand to reason Trump gets a pass for same behavior.

Should he release his tax file? Of course. Why isn't he? I don't know but possibly playing the same game Obama did with his birth certificate. Obama could have settled that very quickly but chose not to.

Should he be condemned for paying as little tax as possible? How many on here don't do that same thing on a much smaller level. Deducting charitable deductions etc.  We did not buy our small farm as a tax write off but I can assure I used every legitimate deduction I could. 

I would have a hard time believing the sainted Hillary didn't do same.

[JoeMo]

Not saying I like one candidate over the other; but I agree with Bonnie.  I would have to hold my nose voting for one, or take anti-nausea medicine to vote for the other.  I think it's sad that we can't vote for the "best" candidate; we can only vote for the "least bad" one.