:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 621 - 640 of total 3586 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Oct 15, 2015 - 11:34am PT

Hillary reminds me of this guy (who was a bit before my time, but I'm sure a lot of you remember this the first time around):

I was a voting adult during the Nixon presidency, so I and millions of others who voted for him over McGovern are responsible for his reelection.

The difference between Hillary and Nixon is that Nixon would not erase the tapes.

John

dirtbag

climber

Oct 15, 2015 - 11:36am PT

Oh, I'm sure Trickie Dickie later wished he had!

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Oct 15, 2015 - 11:39am PT

I'm sure he did, Dirtbag, and I'm sure he considered doing so. And I'm sure Hillary learned for his example.

John

10b4me

Mountain climber

Retired

Oct 15, 2015 - 11:55am PT

jammer, whatever you say.

HEY YOU GUYS! JAY ANDERSON! RUSS WALLING! SURVIVAL! JIM BRENNAN! ALL YOU GUYS! YOUR ALL BIG BLUE BALLOONS! YES, THAT'S RIGHT! B-I-G B-L-U-E B-A-L-L-O-O-N-S! I SAID IT YO! YEA! UUHH HUHHH! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? GET BUTTHURT! LOL!

Norton

Social climber

Oct 15, 2015 - 11:58am PT

John,

seriously and help me out on this if you would but...

tell me why you think that Mrs. Clinton would have erased the tapes, or what you
are saying is that, in your opinion, she is "untrustworthy", correct?

what personal ethical, moral, etc ...things that she do to make you conclude that?

perhaps you are basing your conclusion on the findings of the Benghazi commission?

please be specific with links to the proofs of any charges verified

I am quite sure that even though you vote Republican that your conclusions are based entirely on not what you "want" to believe but what is verified, because otherwise - well

NutAgain!

Trad climber

South Pasadena, CA

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:02pm PT

O10b4me, how can we address resource shortages (e.g. water) and develop appropriate government policies that promote a healthy sustainable life for most citizens, when government decisions are heavily influenced by entities whose motivation is to maximize short-term profit through exploitation of resources? These are the entities that Hillary takes money from.

This is why I say the integrity of our command and control structure for our government, the alignment of policy decisions and values with what most people want and need, is the most important thing. It's a "meta" thing that regulates our ability to focus on what we collectively decide are the most important issues facing our society.

I don't idealize "democracy" as some thing to pursue in and of itself. It is the mechanism to connect the wants and needs of individuals to the actions and decisions and guiding principles of the government. Today that is broken. No single person can fix this, no ideal president. Opposing presidents and congresses today will continue our downward spiral. Bernie says himself that just electing him won't solve the problems. It has to be part of a package of people standing up and expressing what they want and voting for people who will support those policies. If people are marching in the street demanding accountability for the votes of their representatives in congress to reflect what the electorate wants, it is harder for them to vote in line with a special interest or push in a detrimental clause to an omnibus bill. If our citizenry becomes more outspoken, expressing ideas and publicly defending our perspectives (even if we differ from each other), and demanding media attention on what matters to us, the composition of congress will change in a direction to where Bernie is leading. He is a rallying point for a broader effort, not an exalted savior.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:06pm PT

"Redistribution of wealth"

Does it make it any better if the wealth gets distributed to interests you like?

10b4me

Mountain climber

Retired

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:09pm PT

I don't idealize "democracy" as some thing to pursue in and of itself. It is the mechanism to connect the wants and needs of individuals to the actions and decisions and guiding principles of the government. Today that is broken. No single person can fix this, no ideal president. Opposing presidents and congresses today will continue our downward spiral. Bernie says himself that just electing him won't solve the problems. It has to be part of a package of people standing up and expressing what they want and voting for people who will support those policies. If that happened, the composition of congress will change in a direction where Bernie is leading. He is a rallying point for a broader effort, not an exalted savior.

I agree with you, but this is a longterm solution. It seems to me that the Bernie supporters are expecting a short term solution.

Note: I am an indepoendent. I vote for the person.
Sorry if my response was inflammatory.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:14pm PT

I'm sure he did, Dirtbag, and I'm sure he considered doing so."

I kinda doubt he did consider it...from what I understand of that era in politics, recording devices (Nixon's were voice activated, I believe) in the Oval Office were very new technology- no other presidency had used them up to that point in such a manner. The political ramifications of what one should record, when, and how best to handle the recordings afterward were probably hard lessons learned by those who used them ignorantly for the first time (no pejorative intended).

dirtbag

climber

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:17pm PT

I agree, and I meant he wished he hit the erase button after the sheet went down. Nonetheless, as I recall, there were missing segments of tape.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:21pm PT

Norton,

Hillary's actions since at least the start of Bill Clinton's presidency have been steeped in either incompetence or obfuscation. I think she's way too smart to have indulged in that kind of incompetence.

All the evidence of her turning over records whenever subpoenaed or otherwise compelled shows that the records were carefully reviewed and sanitized. I have no problem with that. I expect a careful lawyer to insist on such a review.

The effort devoted to that review, however, makes it exceedingly unlikely that she and her staff omitted relevant material inadvertently. More importantly to me, I find it quite unlikely that she and her staff acted in ignorance with the entire arrangement of her personal server. Honesty and naivety sometimes coexist, and honesty and stupidity often do, too. The kind of self-serving intelligence Hillary Clinton has demonstrated for decades, however, doesn't fit with all of the obfuscation, hiding and diversion being an honest mistake.

Her "What difference does it make now?" response to the question of why the government gave false information to the American people about the Benghzi attack doesn't represent the reaction of one looking to tell the truth. I can think of a great many legitimate reasons for sticking to the story the Administration told, protection of intelligence sources not the least. When everyone knew that story was untrue, however, her evasion doesn't comport with a legitimate reason for her actions, and as an experienced lawyer, she should know that.

I've said before, and I still insist that I would vote for her in preference to any of several Republican candidates still in the race, but her proclivity toward secrecy, obfuscation and evasion of responsibility doesn't make it particularly easy to do so.

John

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:29pm PT

"self-serving intelligence"

Show me one presidential candidate who has any different level of 'self-serving intelligence'. It's a job requirement, John...part and parcel of being a candidate, esp. in today's political landscape.

I really see little difference b/w Hillary's history (the real history, not the one trumped up by Conservative media) and any other POTUS candidate (including the one in the WH right now). The only difference is that this one has a blue vagina. (Yeah, that's wierd.)

crankster

Trad climber

No. Tahoe

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:35pm PT

90% of the knock on Hillary is right-wing, talk radio bs. Mud slung at a wall to see what sticks. Little has, or will. When does a reasonable person look at that and say, well, maybe they were wrong? The truth behind the Benghazi probe has come to light, no surprise, it's politically motivated. There's little or no chance anything will come of the e-mail "scandal", probably some recommendations regarding servers.
Still, her detractors will claim she "worked the system", "it's all rigged", blah, blah....zzzzz.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:37pm PT

Apogee,

I think Hillary is one of the most clearly intelligent announced candidates for president. The difference is that the other candidates don't seem to be embroiled in the sorts of questionable public behavior that surrounds her. No one (to my knowledge) accuses Bernie of circumventing campaign finance laws with a private foundation. No one (again, to my knowledge) accuses Bernie of circumventing the Public Records Act, or having engaged in suspicously lucrative commodities trades. Bernie may exaggerate when he says that most of the increase in economic activity goes to the 1%, but that's the sort of hyperbole we expect from politicians. When Hillary claims she and Bill were penniless upon leaving the White House, that whopper doesn't strike most as being in the same league as typical campaign rhetoric.

I'd still vote for Hillary in preference to Bernie, despite my ethical doubts, and despite Hillary's pandering to the left, because I believe that her policies in governance would be better for the American people than his, even if I wouldn't trust her as a counterparty to a contract. But Hillary has the cloud of mistrust surrounding her because her actions differ materially from those of other politicians. She's much more willing to try to get right to the edge of what is legal. Those who do so seem, inevitably, to cross over the line.

John

pyro

Big Wall climber

Calabasas

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:44pm PT

Yawn. That's because Bernie has little chance of success. He's pretty harmless to the GOP.

DMT is that you in the middle? do you work for MFS?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:52pm PT

do you think millionaire athletes contribute anything to society?

Is that Honnold dude a millionaire?

Hey, it's a climbing thread now!

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Oct 15, 2015 - 12:56pm PT

"other candidates don't seem to be embroiled in the sorts of questionable public behavior that surrounds her."

That you know of...

Every one of these candidates has a sordid history, somewhere- those who have been around a while have been under the spotlight, and been subjected to the oppo research of their opposition, and the public has formed an opinion (no matter what level of factual basis). Those who haven't...well, they need to rise to a level of actual threat to their opposition before the spotlight will be turned on them.

But if they make it that far...that spotlight will turn on them, too, with tiny bits of fact blown out of proportion for political gain.

With that dynamic as a given....that all candidates have mud in their history, and 'self-serving intelligence'....

I'm gonna take the Party that is less likely to get us into unfounded wars, wants to ensure that the playing field for success is truly level, lets people make decisions about their own bodies, and lets people love and marry who they want to.