Oh, you sound like you could have done so much better sitting on your couch having the gaul to criticize Hillary with GOP words!

One never knows; political commentary on past events always includes a bit of armchair quarterbacking. One is always subject to “could you have done better?” types of criticisms whether the target is Clinton or Trump.

But here’s what I DO know:

  • Transparency in government is good.
  • Carrying on the people’s business in secrecy using closed door meetings is bad, assuming material reasonably classified as confidential is not the topic of the meeting. It shows distrust of the public on the part of the official, which is not an admirable characteristic; it is reasonable for the public to take that distrust under consideration should that official seek elective office.
  • Carrying on the people’s business using systems not under the management and governance of the people’s IT infrastructure is also bad, because if the practice is habitual (as in, an official owning and using their own email server) it shows that the official distrusts his or her own government. Again, this is not an admirable characteristic, and it is reasonable for the public to consider this should that official seek elective office.

Here’s a general rule that’s true in all walks of life, not just politics: if you do not wish to be accused of wrongdoing, don’t do things wrong. :-)

STFU with your stupidity, continuing their attacks; we’ve heard them ALL and they don’t hold water for those with the ability and intellect to do research instead of just repeat GOP attacks.

I made no “attacks”; I made three factual points. I’ll illustrate with carefully picked articles from outlets considered to be neutral or left leaning, since you seem to have an allergy to “GOP Words” (although I suspect that to you, a “GOP Word” is simply a point that you disagree with, and know you cannot defend in a rational debate).

  • The first was that Mrs. Clinton has a demonstrable problem with transparency. This has been mentioned by both her critics AND her supporters for decades. (When the lefty agitprop sites like commondreams.org start critcizing leftys, you know its real.)
  • The second was that her support for the Arab Spring didn’t turn out too well, and she should have known it wouldn’t turn out too well vis a vis the Iraq misadventure:
  • On to my final point, resume analysis is always, to a degree, subjective. But what is not subjective in my analysis are four observations. The first is that her resume is SHORT, in that she didn’t enter public life until she was in her 50’s. The second is that she cannot point to any piece of major legislation that she was a primary legislator on during her senatorial tenure. The third is that the aforementioned middle eastern fiascos are part of her record as S of S; and the fourth is that she has no managerial experience on said resume. Those are all facts, and as such, are beyond disputation.

As the author said, enough is enough. YOU move on, WE are not going away and now that the attacks are being directed at Chelsea, we will become even more offensive to you and your cool aid drinking types!

You seem to be confused about several things:

  • I entered this thread in response to another individual who, clearly, has not “moved on”. Personally, I “moved on” at 9:30 PM on the night of Nov. 8, 2016, when the NY Times gauges moved to show Trump as the likely winner, and election analyst Nate Cohn of the Times tweeted to the effect of “the white working class is for the first time voting like a minority bloc”. Fascinating moment and observation on his part.
  • In order for you to be offensive to me, you would first have to be relevant.
    You’re not.


Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.