If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Are you never skeptical about the source of the argument? Most of the stuff worth giving real thought was reported by the LW media as is typically the case (when you're capable of genuine objectivity). Theres a slant on it for sure, but its rare they ignore or deny things altogether. This is not the case with Fox and co. Cue our right-leaners to moan about the LW media is the worst thing ever in a strikingly similar situation to that where a few rioters look worse than millions of Nazis as mentioned above. Its a neat trick if you have a base that lets you do it. Moreno when the middle ground gets sucked in too.
Being a failure is one thing. Your dislike ran much earlier than that. I still feel like most of the 'evidence' against her came from sources that spent so much time saying things about her, and making stuff up about her that even when they hit something worth worrying about you could fully justify ignoring it. I remain surprised that you didn't is all. On other subjects I wouldn't have really questioned it but the campaign against Hillary began immediately after someone first suggested she might fancy being POTUS after Bill was elected. It was calculated and it ultimately paid off.
This has revolved back to the original question.
Which criticism do I have which isn't corroborated by left-wing sources?
I'll list them
1) She's paranoid
2) She's entitled
3) She has a vicious temper
4) She treats her underlings poorly
The final one doesn't have left-wing corroboration, which is to their discredit, since it's corroborated by the State Department and the FBI.
5) She felt justified gaslighting the country over a minor transgression. See: numbers one and two.
Also note despite these criticisms, I still would have voted for her if Illinois had been in play.
Which criticism do I have which isn't corroborated by left-wing sources?
I'll list them
1) She's paranoid
2) She's entitled
3) She has a vicious temper
4) She treats her underlings poorly
The final one doesn't have left-wing corroboration, which is to their discredit, since it's corroborated by the State Department and the FBI.
5) She felt justified gaslighting the country over a minor transgression. See: numbers one and two.
Also note despite these criticisms, I still would have voted for her if Illinois had been in play.
All four of those sound to me like they would come from right wing sources. If I'm wrong then at least now people know I don't spend as much time as they think reading left wing news.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
She decided her own running mate could not be trusted with the information she was sick.
Is this factually incorrect, or somehow not strong evidence of criticism number one?
When it comes to such a contested statement, isn't the onus on you to provide evidence? I've only seen accusations that Clinton was gravely ill from conspiracy peddlers. And I mean gravely ill, not suffering from exhaustion or something.
Moreover, looking at your list, I don't really see how many of them relate to her fitness to do well in her job. Steve Jobs wasn't always “nice”, but he was damn effective at his job. And if those four points really were your criteria to vote against Clinton, then I'm baffled — Clinton would still run circles around Trump. None of the points you mention are related to actual policies, just “touchy-feely stuff” that can be easily influenced by the type of media diet you have.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
She decided her own running mate could not be trusted with the information she was sick.
Is this factually incorrect, or somehow not strong evidence of criticism number one?
I have no idea, this is the first I'm hearing of this particular detail. It does sound like RW conspiracy BS though tbh. Did she ever even admit to being ill?
The photos and videos and blathering on about stumbling were entirely unconvincing. Trumpian even.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
When it comes to such a contested statement, isn't the onus on you to provide evidence? I've only seen accusations that Clinton was gravely ill from conspiracy peddlers. And I mean gravely ill, not suffering from exhaustion or something.
This.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Moreover, looking at your list, I don't really see how many of them relate to her fitness to do well in her job. Steve Jobs wasn't always “nice”, but he was damn effective at his job. And if those four points really were your criteria to vote against Clinton, then I'm baffled — Clinton would still run circles around Trump. None of the points you mention are related to actual policies, just “touchy-feely stuff” that can be easily influenced by the type of media diet you have.
To be fair he did say he would have voted for her over Trump if had mattered.
You're right about the rest though. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. I find it so odd coming from you Subego that I wasn't sure if I was just imagining it or not.
1.Having your own email server when you're secretary of state might be better evidence of paranoia than unsubstantiated claims of hiding an unsubstantiated illness.
2. If you mean entitled like a rich person or a millennial, then I'll point out she is a rich person but also that this is just another personal attack from the right without a specific example. If you mean entitled to be POTUS, she's by far the most qualified candidate for the office in living memory if not a damn sight longer. Most people believe she deserves a lot of the credit for getting Bill into office and doing the job he did. She sucked it up and supported Obama when he beat her. Some might say she's worked damned hard and put up with more shit than any man who ever ran for office and she ended up with what would in any sane country have been a slam dunk contest against an abject buffoon so maybe she was entitled to feel a little entitled.
3. Again, specific examples are really needed to demonstrate how she is any worse than anyone else but I bet she doesn't get super mad as often as Trump and I bet she doesn't throw tantrums daily either.
4. Again, examples. Forgive me if I have the details wrong, I can only follow US politics so closely, but didn't she have a loyal right hand woman who stuck with her for many years and even tried to take a fall for her at one point? Not everyone is going to like their boss but that kind of loyalty is rare if your boss is a dick to you all the time.
The only example I've heard of her treating people poorly was from an anecdote posted by CTP but since his entire worldview these days is built upon a foundation made entirely from the porridge that leaks out of Alex Jones' head every time he shouts too much, I take it with the entire salt content of the planet Earth.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
When it comes to such a contested statement, isn't the onus on you to provide evidence? I've only seen accusations that Clinton was gravely ill from conspiracy peddlers. And I mean gravely ill, not suffering from exhaustion or something.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I have no idea, this is the first I'm hearing of this particular detail. It does sound like RW conspiracy BS though tbh. Did she ever even admit to being ill?
My statement isn't contested, what's contested is the claim my criticisms come from right-wing sources, and the onus is on the people lobbing the accusation to provide stronger evidence than "it sounds right-wing to me!"
To be fair he did say he would have voted for her over Trump if had mattered.
Yes, but you can still make a point by not voting for Trump. Clinton is someone you may disagree with on political issues. Trump is dangerous for the United States and the world at large.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
You're right about the rest though. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. I find it so odd coming from you Subego that I wasn't sure if I was just imagining it or not.
Maybe subego can chime in, but I find it very odd that not only were the stated reasons about purported bad personality traits, even if we concede that they are all present in Clinton, the discussion seems entirely divorced from Trump's character. I've seen a lot of placating from self-professed conservatives (I'm not necessarily talking about subego here, his take is more nuanced). Can you imagine what conservatives would have done if President Obama or President Hillary Clinton had called the White House a dump? Or alluded to sex parties on a friend's yacht during a speech to boy scouts? They wouldn't have let them forget that for the entirety of their term.
In a lot of ways, I have observed a systematic exaggeration of Hillary Clinton's (purported or real) character weaknesses, and very little on substantive policy issues. (I would have gladly discussed the problem I have with Hillary Clinton's hawkishness on foreign policy matters, for example.)
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
2. If you mean entitled like a rich person or a millennial, then I'll point out she is a rich person but also that this is just another personal attack from the right without a specific example.
I'm not sure what that even means in this context. Yes, she is rich, but she has worked hard. The accusation of “entitlement” is vague and to me just means that you don't think Clinton deserves what she has received — unjustly privileged. But again, she was running against Donald Trump, so voting for Trump instead of Clinton because Clinton is “entitled” seems an odd argument to make.
Again, I really find it interesting that subego chose to list purported character traits instead of policy differences. And these aspects pretend we know Hillary Clinton privately.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
According to the link, she was suffering from pneumonia and dehydration, both of which are not serious diseases (if treated properly, which they were), and given her campaign schedule, normal.
Originally Posted by subego
My statement isn't contested, what's contested is the claim my criticisms come from right-wing sources, and the onus is on the people lobbing the accusation to provide stronger evidence than "it sounds right-wing to me!"
I think it was contested, because you were very vague. From your initial post, it was not clear whether you referred to her pneumonia or to what conspiracy theorists made of this (such as “Look, she is wearing a catheter!” or “I heard she is seriously, seriously ill, and this guy who claims to be a doctor has diagnosed her from afar!” or “I think she is treated the wrong way for the ailments she has.”). In that context, these accusations were meant to spread FUD on whether she would be physically capable to handle the job.
If you in your post meant pneumonia, dehydration and exhaustion, then your claim really amounts to nothing. The fact that she got sick just means she went to too many campaign rallies, shook too many hands and got too little sleep for quite a while. Again, it seems to be an odd non-issue that gets exaggerated when there are much, much more important substantive issues to talk about here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I think it was contested, because you were very vague.
This was my statement,
"She decided her own running mate could not be trusted with the information she was sick."
It was provided as evidence for the first flaw on my list: paranoia.
That she got sick while subjecting herself to a grueling schedule is not the flaw under discussion, nor would I claim it's a flaw. The fact it's normal does not address my statement in any form or fashion.
My statement was not vague because there was only one public instance of her keeping being sick from her running mate. If someone is going to lecture me about my shitty opinions, there's an implied claim they're familiar with the topic.
I would never, ever, ever vote for Trump. I wanted Hillary to win.
As I've said before, aside from her legion of character flaws, she's my dream Democrat. She's a pro-business war-hawk. Our big policy disagreement is the Second Amendment, but I expect Democrats to disagree with me on this.
Though I hope this whole Trump thing scares them enough to realize they're wrong.
"She decided her own running mate could not be trusted with the information she was sick."
It was provided as evidence for the first flaw on my list: paranoia.
If I have diarrhea, I also don't tell my co-workers. You make a connection between a minor disease and her perhaps not telling her VP candidate about that minor disease, and you link it to paranoia. I think you are trying to connect dots that have nothing to do with one another.
Originally Posted by subego
My statement was not vague because there was only one public instance of her keeping being sick from her running mate. If someone is going to lecture me about my shitty opinions, there's an implied claim they're familiar with the topic.
Your statement was vague, because of the specific context. The fact that two people independently took your post differently is evidence of that. This just means you didn't explain it very well — which is fine, this is a discussion forum and you can clarify things. Don't take that as an insult, but just as a statement of fact (and it is meant as just that).
It would have made more sense if Clinton had had a serious disease and had hidden that from her VP pick Tim Kaine — that would have been as if Steve Jobs had hidden his cancer diagnosis from Tim Cook and all other C-level execs at Apple. For a minor disease, it is simply not an issue and certainly not a sign of paranoia. If you want to talk about Clinton's lack of trust/paranoia, you can find more suitable examples. This more nuanced point is well-covered in the media.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
So you were aware she didn't tell Tim Kaine, and I didn't explain it very well, or you weren't aware of the incident of her not telling him?
If it's the latter, the issue isn't my explanation.
To make the diarrhea analogy apt, it has to be diarrhea so bad it causes exiting an event on national television and collapsing in public, all amidst flat-out denials of the swirling rumors of sickness...
And the co-worker in question has to be the person being sold as the designated understudy.
If jacking a co-worker like this is business as usual, remind me to stay away from the cutthroat world of academia.
Also note the relevance to numero quatro.
As for other examples of Hillary's paranoia (and/or being a [not very nice word] to her underlings), we've got an entire thread of open road before us, with much scenery to enjoy along the way. No reason to make it a race.
So you were aware she didn't tell Tim Kaine, and I didn't explain it very well, or you weren't aware of the incident of her not telling him?
No, the issue is different: I was not sure what disease you were referring to — not, because I was unfamiliar with the incident, but because I did not know whether you invoked conspiracy theories here or not.
Originally Posted by subego
To make the diarrhea analogy apt, it has to be diarrhea so bad it causes exiting an event on national television and collapsing in public, all amidst flat-out denials of the swirling rumors of sickness...
Yes, I think that is apt. And? Probably she was embarrassed. Perhaps she pooped her pants (something quite common when you lose consciousness)*, and she just wasn't going to share all these details. I don't think it is a sign of paranoia.
I think it is just a bad example for paranoia.
* I'm being serious here and am not trying to be disparaging towards Clinton.
Originally Posted by subego
As for other examples of Hillary's paranoia (and/or being a [not very nice word] to her underlings), we've got an entire thread of open road before us, with much scenery to enjoy along the way. No reason to make it a race.
I read on many occasions that she is great in person, checked up on people, etc. I don't think it makes sense to cherry pick stories here: some people don't mesh even and had a bad relationship with her (for good or bad reasons).
The list sounds more like a personality you have constructed, a person who you feel no sympathy for, a person that you would dislike if you met her. Each item has a more charitable explanation: you claim she is paranoid, but another interpretation would be to say she is guarded and has a small, exclusive circle of confidantes whom she trusts completely (e. g. Huma Abedin). If I understand your argument in the initial post, those five character traits that you see prevent her from being a good President, correct? But given her long and successful political career, I don't see evidence that this impeded her efficacy as a politician. Being an ass to staffers, for example, does not necessarily mean you are bad at your job, just unpleasant to work with — just think of Steve Jobs.
But let's not get lost, I'm really curious in an answer to my initial question: of all the things to be critical of Clinton, why doesn't your list include policy matters? I find that very odd.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
My statement isn't contested, what's contested is the claim my criticisms come from right-wing sources, and the onus is on the people lobbing the accusation to provide stronger evidence than "it sounds right-wing to me!"
This is fair but when I say it sounds RW, I mean 99% of the news sources I saw it on were RW and 99% of the people I saw mention it (repeatedly) I know frequent RW news almost exclusively. This is absolutely true of everything I saw about Hillary's alleged illness. Most of it was still photos claiming she couldn't walk up stairs by herself if I recall.
If Kaine knew and kept it to himself, refusing to say if he knew is just protecting him. Thats courtesy. To an underling.
Aren't those two sources quite RW anyway? Or are they the two I always get confused? Theres definitely a Washington something which is RW.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
But let's not get lost, I'm really curious in an answer to my initial question: of all the things to be critical of Clinton, why doesn't your list include policy matters? I find that very odd.
I don't have policy criticisms. Like I said above, excepting her legion of character flaws, she's my dream Democrat. Unlike a bunch of Democrats, she's pro-business. I'm pro-business. Unlike a bunch of Democrats, she's a hawk. I'm a hawk. We disagree on guns. I'm used to this with Democrats. It's never been a deal-breaker with me.
That said, it was also her policy to do the following.
In July of 2015, the State Department goes on the record she sent emails classified at the time.
Again, this is the State Department.
Again, this is in July of 2015.
Despite there being an unequivocal and easily verifiable answer to whether she ran classified emails through her server, this somehow remains an open question until Comey holds his press conference almost a year later.
That doesn't happen by accident. It happens through a long-term effort of coordinated, mass obfuscation.
In terms of a policy for handling crisis, I do not support this, I question the underlying psychology of the decision to react in such a manner (hint: paranoia, entitlement), and I rightfully question what her response would have been had she actually done something really bad.
Yet, you chose to lead with character flaws. I'm not asking you to attack you for it, it is that I really don't understand your (and presumably that of many Trump voters) logic in doing so.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
This is fair but when I say it sounds RW, I mean 99% of the news sources I saw it on were RW and 99% of the people I saw mention it (repeatedly) I know frequent RW news almost exclusively. This is absolutely true of everything I saw about Hillary's alleged illness. Most of it was still photos claiming she couldn't walk up stairs by herself if I recall.
If Kaine knew and kept it to himself, refusing to say if he knew is just protecting him. Thats courtesy. To an underling.
Aren't those two sources quite RW anyway? Or are they the two I always get confused? Theres definitely a Washington something which is RW.
I'll give a more thorough answer later, but The New York Times and The Washington Post are the epitome of the MSM, so of course they're left-wing.
The Washington Times is the right-wing one, and is owned by the Moonies. The Washington Post is owned by the CIA Jeff Bezos from Amazon.
How did you not? He's only said it ~2-3 dozen times? Same with me, I didn't vote for Trump either.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Ah, I do always mix those two up. The NY Times either posts the odd thing that throws me off or is there a RW NY Post or something?
You know, I completely forgot about the other two New York papers.
There's the New York Post, and the New York Daily News.
These are kinda, sorta joke papers. They're both famous for trashy pic/headline combos. One of them (I forget which) has "Page Six", which is the go-to for daily print gossip about the New York elite.
This is fair but when I say it sounds RW, I mean 99% of the news sources I saw it on were RW and 99% of the people I saw mention it (repeatedly) I know frequent RW news almost exclusively. This is absolutely true of everything I saw about Hillary's alleged illness. Most of it was still photos claiming she couldn't walk up stairs by herself if I recall.
If Kaine knew and kept it to himself, refusing to say if he knew is just protecting him. Thats courtesy. To an underling.
Aren't those two sources quite RW anyway? Or are they the two I always get confused? Theres definitely a Washington something which is RW.
The right-wing did themselves no favors when it came to reporting on Hillary's health. I spent much time arguing against against groundless speculation.
On the other hand, there's this...
I am not a religious man. By the time I got to the point where I was literally praying to God for it this to stop, I wasn't even halfway through.
To be clear, I did not at the time think this meant every conspiracy theory about her health to be legit, but she is clearly unwell here. In the face of insistence from her team she's right as rain, it's not like she fostered an environment of clarity.
Again, this is how she deals with minor issues like working too hard, how should one expect to deal with real issues?
Certainly not with being forthright.
And let me add, this clip wasn't covered extensively by the MSM, even though it was most certainly not in the category of "pants-wrinkle catheter".
What I noted at the time is this was yet another example of her being an utterly horrible public speaker.
This is notable because she had the two greatest living orators at her disposal to give advice, and didn't listen to a goddamn thing they said.
I'll even speculate how it went down. I'm sure Bill used to give her tips, until he got sick of her losing her shit about the criticism and gave the **** up.
Yet, you chose to lead with character flaws. I'm not asking you to attack you for it, it is that I really don't understand your (and presumably that of many Trump voters) logic in doing so.
My issues are with her character. What am I supposed to lead with?
What I noted at the time is this was yet another example of her being an utterly horrible public speaker.
This is notable because she had the two greatest living orators at her disposal to give advice, and didn't listen to a goddamn thing they said.
I'll even speculate how it went down. I'm sure Bill used to give her tips, until he got sick of her losing her shit about the criticism and gave the **** up.
This yet again seems like you are going out of your way to find something to criticize Clinton for: when you compare someone to some of the best orators in a generation, they will seem mediocre even though they are not. When Lionel Messi dances around other top-level soccer players with ease, they may look like they are 4th-graders even though they are not. Plus, while giving speeches is important, it is hardly the only thing a President has to do well and I would argue that Clinton's strengths lie elsewhere.
I really get the impression you started with not liking her, and then filled in the list of dislikable character traits.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
This yet again seems like you are going out of your way to find something to criticize Clinton for: when you compare someone to some of the best orators in a generation, they will seem mediocre even though they are not. When Lionel Messi dances around other top-level soccer players with ease, they may look like they are 4th-graders even though they are not. Plus, while giving speeches is important, it is hardly the only thing a President has to do well and I would argue that Clinton's strengths lie elsewhere.
I really get the impression you started with not liking her, and then filled in the list of dislikable character traits.
I don't expect her to be brilliant, I expect her to accomplish the basics, such as varying tone to match the statement, and mic technique, such as point the handheld mic away when coughing up an entire lung.
I used to like her. I didn't start turning on her until 2008, after her "landed in Bosnia under sniper fire" bullshit.
The right-wing did themselves no favors when it came to reporting on Hillary's health. I spent much time arguing against against groundless speculation.
On the other hand, there's this...
I am not a religious man. By the time I got to the point where I was literally praying to God for it this to stop, I wasn't even halfway through.
To be clear, I did not at the time think this meant every conspiracy theory about her health to be legit, but she is clearly unwell here. In the face of insistence from her team she's right as rain, it's not like she fostered an environment of clarity.
Again, this is how she deals with minor issues like working too hard, how should one expect to deal with real issues?
Certainly not with being forthright.
And let me add, this clip wasn't covered extensively by the MSM, even though it was most certainly not in the category of "pants-wrinkle catheter".
Tough one. If you have a health issue that can or will impact on your presidency, you ought to disclose it. Of course if you do, you're probably done for, especially if you're Hillary. As a woman trying to win over middle-right voters, she has to be twice as tough as any male GOP candidate in order to look half as tough to those on the right.
If her illness was just something temporary but inconvenient, the she is entitled to privacy for one thing but also its still going to be made to look like a terminal illness and sign of weakness by her opponents PR team. Exactly as it was. She's still alive to the best of my knowledge. Unless she's been replaced by a lizard person or whatever the loonies believe these days.
The whole health issue feels like something that a neutral observer could easily dismiss because the GOP would over-inflate it and use it against her with success. This has borne out to be accurate with the benefit of hindsight.
So I get your interpretation, and I'm not saying its even that unreasonable, but it is the interpretation I'd expect from a partisan GOP fanboy.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Yes. Hillary is afraid of her opponents using information against her.
Tim Kaine is her opponent?
No but politicians have assistants, interns, campaigners and busy offices with crappy security, at least against their poorly paid staff. If you don't want something leaked, you don't tell anyone. Or maybe he was just saying what she wanted him to say?
Again, if it isn't life threatening then it isn't a big deal and the explanations are all pretty simple, pretty obvious and pretty reasonable. No stretching of imagination is really required. I'm surprised you are still arguing the point this hard which again reinforces my point that your whole take on her seems a bit off for usual self. I wouldn't have given it a second thought if you'd just said you didn't like her but she was better than Trump and left it at that, but you just seemed like you were buying into a lot of RW nonsense about her by giving it undue attention or repetition.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
No but politicians have assistants, interns, campaigners and busy offices with crappy security, at least against their poorly paid staff. If you don't want something leaked, you don't tell anyone. Or maybe he was just saying what she wanted him to say?
Again, if it isn't life threatening then it isn't a big deal and the explanations are all pretty simple, pretty obvious and pretty reasonable. No stretching of imagination is really required. I'm surprised you are still arguing the point this hard which again reinforces my point that your whole take on her seems a bit off for usual self. I wouldn't have given it a second thought if you'd just said you didn't like her but she was better than Trump and left it at that, but you just seemed like you were buying into a lot of RW nonsense about her by giving it undue attention or repetition.
I'm arguing this hard because (for the most part) my point isn't being addressed.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's being argued the most important deciding factor for telling Kaine should have been whether her condition was fatal.
What I'm arguing for as the most important deciding factor is this whacky right-wing idea known as the context.
The context was Hillary decided to fly so close to the boundaries of her envelope she went past the edge and her wings popped off.
To carry out the analogy (in an admittedly imperfect manner), this is something the pilot should warn the co-pilot about before trying.
Her responsibility to Kaine wasn't to inform him of her condition, it was to inform him he's coming along on an Icarus gambit. Informing him of the condition follows because it's the reason for the gambit. There are other contexts in which she does not inform him.
There seems to be no disagreement with the charge her ultimate fear was of a leak. Assuming she isn't so dreadfully incompetent as to be unable to speak confidentially with her choice of Vice President, the idea telling Kaine could precipitate a leak it is preposterous. Fearing a leak from him is paranoia far in excess of what's called for
It's also treating him like shit.
That she did tell Kaine, but they lied about it, does address my argument, but I'm not sure of the upside to lying in a manner which makes one look excessively paranoid.
(
Last edited by subego; Aug 23, 2017 at 04:11 PM.
)
That she did tell Kaine, but they lied about it, does address my argument, but I'm not sure of the upside to lying in a manner which makes one look excessively paranoid.
She clearly wasn't ill at the start, so it must have cropped up during the campaign. The options then are admit it and risk losing votes, or lie to try to avoid that. The fact the RW media seized on it so strongly that even the likes of you were convinced it was a black mark against her for one reason or another means any paranoia was fully justified and therefore never paranoia in the first place but rather perfectly reasonable concern.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
My apologies, I got rushed at the end and didn't make my transition very clear.
The bulk of my post is about the scenario where Hillary didn't tell Kaine. I'm not questioning the rationale of keeping it from the press, I'm questioning the rationale of keeping it from Kaine.
The quoted paragraph is about the scenario (presented by you) where she did tell Kaine, but they both decided to lie to the press about whether he was told. I'm saying that could have happened, but makes no sense. Why would she tell him and then refuse to admit she told him when directly asked? How do they benefit from this? It has nothing to do with the press finding out she's sick, they already know... she just collapsed at a national event.
Maybe she figured if she outed him as knowing and keeping her secret, the RW media would be able to label him as dishonest and crooked if ever ran again?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
As flippant as that was though its not like its beyond the media to do exactly that.
I can't really be arsed any more, I concede. You deserve the benefit of the doubt if you say your dislike of Hillary has no root in listening to (or accidentally hearing) the RW hate campaign against her, then I withdraw my claim to the contrary.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The root was her server, though no right-wing media was necessary. Only the barest details were needed to arrive at an accurate conclusion: she was trying to hide her emails, and she risked national security to do it. I feel safe indicting the character flaws responsible for this behavior: paranoia and entitlement.
I was also a Bernie supporter, whose distinct lack of crippling character flaws cast Hillary's in sharp relief.
I get most of my news from the MSM, so left-wing media. They wanted Hillary to win and can't resist hate-****ing Trump. I'm going to compensate for these biases to the best of my ability, so my view of the world is by necessity not quite going to match up with theirs.
However, I'm not trying to compensate to right-wing, I'm trying to compensate to accurate. Being right-wing helps to some extent because I'm viewing it from the outside, and observation is easier than introspection.
I was also a Bernie supporter, whose distinct lack of crippling character flaws cast Hillary's in sharp relief.
Except for his admiration of Venezuela and Cuba.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top