TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Let me tell you a little story. It is a story about a conversation I had in a thread with someone on this board today. But with respect to her and to the rules set forth for this forum, I won't be naming names.
I was bored. I had just gotten home from an awesome calzone shop in downtown Athens, and there was nothing to do. I had missed the first 20 minutes of Legends and Lies, so as I waited for the re-air three hours later, I chose to peruse the board as I usually do. I happened upon a thread about the exchange between Trump and Khizr Khan, where this liberal had been going on about how telling of Trump's character it is for him to be so easily baited by a tweet. She asked me "If Trump can be so easily baited, what does that say about him as President?"
In reply I told her that "if Hillary can't properly handle e-mails with top secret information, what would that say about her as president? If her campaign can't keep the Russians from hacking their database, what would that say about her as president? It would say that she is ill equipped to handle matters and materiel relating to national security. That she would be unable to protect America from cyber threats from overseas". The liberal insisted however that it was a "whole 'nother issue." "Frankly", the liberal continued, "she said it was a mistake. I suspect she's learned from it."
"That's one hell of a mistake", I told her, "that's our national security she compromised on that unsecure server. That's classified information she deleted from that unsecure server. Sometimes "Sorry" or "I made a mistake" won't cut it. Everything that Comey told us in his presser indicated she broke the law. The fact was made worse by the fact she got away with it. You can admit you made a mistake, but it doesn't repair the damage already done. So, if we are going to make suggestions about the character of a presidential candidate based on their actions in the past, then this isn't "a whole 'nother issue", it is perfectly relevant."
As our discussion came to a close she conceded that she wouldn't defend what Hillary did, ending with "but given we have a choice of two rather flawed candidates - Clinton scares me a lot less than Trump." I sat there and mulled the depressing nature of the comment, and noted the irony. "And that is a sad thing in and of itself", I said. "That one "scares me a lot less" than the other". I kept thinking later on how puzzling that comment was.
This liberal told me that while she would not defend Hillary's behavior, Hillary was a more stable choice than Trump. However, a habitual liar like Clinton is instability personified. When someone lies so, so much, they become uncomfortable with telling the truth. That became clearly apparent in her interview with Chris Wallace yesterday. But how could this liberal have arrived at such a conclusion? Out of all of Trump's flaws, none of them included endangering our national security by storing top secret information on an unsecure server. Nor did they include destroying government property, namely said top secret information. None of his bankruptcies, his fraudulent schemes, his marital failures, or his inflammatory comments have risen to that level. None of them COMBINED even come close to the scope and magnitude of the "mistake(s)" Hillary made while as Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton put the safety and security of her, an American citizen just like you and I, in danger by mishandling top secret information; by putting it on an unsecure server, yet she is still willing to let that and this clear show of administrative ineptitude slide by voting for her in the election. Why? How can any of Hillary's so called accomplishments make up for the damage she has done? Why does this not bother the liberal I spoke with? Why does it not anger her to watch as a man, who is responsible for helping carry out the investigative legal processes of America's justice system, describe point by point how she broke those laws suddenly end such a damning rebuttal of her narrative by telling us, the law abiding citizenry, that he would not charge Hillary with a crime?
I again mulled over the quandary just a bit more. But then I sat down with my Barq's root beer to the 11 o'clock re-air of Legends and Lies.
I was bored. I had just gotten home from an awesome calzone shop in downtown Athens, and there was nothing to do. I had missed the first 20 minutes of Legends and Lies, so as I waited for the re-air three hours later, I chose to peruse the board as I usually do. I happened upon a thread about the exchange between Trump and Khizr Khan, where this liberal had been going on about how telling of Trump's character it is for him to be so easily baited by a tweet. She asked me "If Trump can be so easily baited, what does that say about him as President?"
In reply I told her that "if Hillary can't properly handle e-mails with top secret information, what would that say about her as president? If her campaign can't keep the Russians from hacking their database, what would that say about her as president? It would say that she is ill equipped to handle matters and materiel relating to national security. That she would be unable to protect America from cyber threats from overseas". The liberal insisted however that it was a "whole 'nother issue." "Frankly", the liberal continued, "she said it was a mistake. I suspect she's learned from it."
"That's one hell of a mistake", I told her, "that's our national security she compromised on that unsecure server. That's classified information she deleted from that unsecure server. Sometimes "Sorry" or "I made a mistake" won't cut it. Everything that Comey told us in his presser indicated she broke the law. The fact was made worse by the fact she got away with it. You can admit you made a mistake, but it doesn't repair the damage already done. So, if we are going to make suggestions about the character of a presidential candidate based on their actions in the past, then this isn't "a whole 'nother issue", it is perfectly relevant."
As our discussion came to a close she conceded that she wouldn't defend what Hillary did, ending with "but given we have a choice of two rather flawed candidates - Clinton scares me a lot less than Trump." I sat there and mulled the depressing nature of the comment, and noted the irony. "And that is a sad thing in and of itself", I said. "That one "scares me a lot less" than the other". I kept thinking later on how puzzling that comment was.
This liberal told me that while she would not defend Hillary's behavior, Hillary was a more stable choice than Trump. However, a habitual liar like Clinton is instability personified. When someone lies so, so much, they become uncomfortable with telling the truth. That became clearly apparent in her interview with Chris Wallace yesterday. But how could this liberal have arrived at such a conclusion? Out of all of Trump's flaws, none of them included endangering our national security by storing top secret information on an unsecure server. Nor did they include destroying government property, namely said top secret information. None of his bankruptcies, his fraudulent schemes, his marital failures, or his inflammatory comments have risen to that level. None of them COMBINED even come close to the scope and magnitude of the "mistake(s)" Hillary made while as Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton put the safety and security of her, an American citizen just like you and I, in danger by mishandling top secret information; by putting it on an unsecure server, yet she is still willing to let that and this clear show of administrative ineptitude slide by voting for her in the election. Why? How can any of Hillary's so called accomplishments make up for the damage she has done? Why does this not bother the liberal I spoke with? Why does it not anger her to watch as a man, who is responsible for helping carry out the investigative legal processes of America's justice system, describe point by point how she broke those laws suddenly end such a damning rebuttal of her narrative by telling us, the law abiding citizenry, that he would not charge Hillary with a crime?
I again mulled over the quandary just a bit more. But then I sat down with my Barq's root beer to the 11 o'clock re-air of Legends and Lies.
Last edited:
