2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn another thread a poster was castigated for mentioning Clinton's tale of sniper fire at an airport
The poster was told they could not mention the sniper fire incident as a testamanent to Hillary's veracity, or lack there of, in that thread because it was "hijacking" a thread. So here is goes:
Hillary flat out LIED when she claimed she came under sniper fire, she had to walk it back days later. Her telling of the same incident has yet another 'flavor' in her book. Hillary has a questionable relationship with the truth. There is video of her arrival, she is greeted by a smiling young girl handing her flowers, Hillary is not running under a hail of sniper bullets.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)this will be embarrassing for all Democrats.....her "untrustworthy" numbers in the polls will get even worse.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Where did you find it?
artislife
(9,497 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....about the truth of Bernie Sanders - that he's a socialist. There won't be any walking that one back.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... for president , or you can run a campaign to explain socilism, but you can't do both .
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... a self proclaimed socialist . Even atheists poll better.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/
Time for a reality check.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)you'll see
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...not inclusive of athiests and socialists. Those folks (and i am amongst them) are not considered people - they are considered the lunatic fringe .
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the times they are a changin'
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)As in a-, meaning not, and theist, one who believes in theology. And speaking as a proud atheist, voter, and citizen, you can take that anti-atheist sentiment and cram it up your backside, likewise anyone else who thinks that way.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...and a voter and a citizen . Would I vote for an self declared athiest running in the democratic primary? Despite being an athiest , I would not. That would hand the presidency over to whoever the Republican candidate happened to be .
As an athiest who knows athiests I think I can speak for our tribe when I say we ain't that stupid , brother.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)And I think you protest too much. I think you're being disingenuous and pursuing an agenda. On the off chance that you're being honest, let me just say that I'd rather fight and lose than surrender outright. So your talk of "handing over" is moot; to put forth a candidate who represents "Republican lite" is a preemptive handover.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).....make sure the Democratic cadidate for president wins the election.
So, I showed you mine - what's your agenda?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Avoid candidates who would transfer more wealth away from the people to the plutocrats, who would engage in more wars to line wealthy pockets at the expense of our young men and women. Bring jobs and prosperity back to our country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Can you show where he self proclaimed as being a socialist? He is a "democratic socialist", which is quite different. And I assume you know the difference and you know he has never claimed to be a socialist, so why would you say such things?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... a straight up socialist . Not that it matters. Explaining the various sects and variaties of socialist ideology is no way to run a presidential campaign . Bernie is toast.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hateful lies. Prove me wrong. And I would rather fight and lose on the side that is fighting for the 22% of American children living in poverty. It'd be easy to choose the side of the 1%. Take a chance and fight for our democracy.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265#ixzz3n5IaxfeX
My bet is there are a lot of oposition researchers out there that can come up with more. But it doesn't really matter . If you have to spend your time explaining the differences between various socialistic sects, you've already lost. All the public will hear is socilism socilism socialism .
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He also said,
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265#ixzz3n5RTpw00
And he had other explanations on what he means by socialist.
I will support him over the candidate that is a tool of the oligarchy. I recognize your point that the Republicons will try to use socialist as a hammer against him. But I think it's time to draw the line and fight. H. Clinton will not fight for the 99% and we will just get 8 more years of Wall Street looting our economy.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... first, do you think the Republicans are above cherry picking quotes? Second, do you think the average voter is going to care if sanders is a "socialist " or a "democratic socialist "?
Many voters will just assume that "democratic socialist" means he's a Democratic Party member who is a socialist . Any attempt to explain otherwise will just make matters worse .
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)people that will be swayed by the Republicon bullshit, will be swayed one way or the other. The Republicons have a lot of ammunition to fire at H. Clinton. Especially if they ask her why in 2002 she decided the Republicon invasion of Iraq was the smartest thing to do.
We must get money our of politics. If we don't, nothing much will matter. H. Clinton is part of the 1%, she caters to the 1% and she even supports the 1%. I will not vote for a continuation of the status quo that is killing the 99%. I am sorry you are too afraid to fight for our freedoms, liberties, and the 22% of American children living in poverty.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)If that's all they have it's really pathetic.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why would a Democrat side with the 1% that has given us a system where 22% of our children live in poverty? Is it pure idol worship? Or do they think that the 1% will take good care of them? Or are they terrified of fighting for freedoms and liberties.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)..... you should write a post apocalyptic novel or some other pot boiler. Maybe turn it into a video game.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the 1% will take good care of them. I hate to tell them, but the 1% don't really love them.
It will be an uphill battle, that's for sure. The 1% has most of the resources and trying to more. But we need to draw the line and fight at some point.
How do you rationalize in this class war, siding against the American children living in poverty?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)"Bernie sanders - bringing class war to America ! " Boy, we have a real winner there.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the 99%. Remember Goldman-Sachs does not have your best interest at heart."
I hope you aren't pretending that there isn't a class war. Maybe you don't get out much and see the lines at the foodbanks, the children that go to school without breakfast, seniors deciding on heat vs. food in the winter, the vets begging on the streets. They don't matter to Goldman-Sachs and the Third Way Democrats.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... are going to make it with anyone anyhow. They haven't in the past and there is less reason for anyone to pay any attention now.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it doesn't exist. Personally I think it's immoral to pretend that 22% of our Children living in poverty isn't a problem. I think it's immoral to put profits before people's well being.
I'd ask you what you think but I haven't been successful to get anti-progressives to discuss anything other than personalities.
The people of the world as well as the USofA are waking up to the fact that the 1% are looting all of our resources. Our retirements, our social safety nets, our infrastructure, our jobs, etc. Deny if you will, but sooner or later you will have to wake up and smell the oligarchy.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)It's a class war by the obscenely wealthy against the rest of us..the workers, the producers, men, women and children.
Bernie Sanders is bringing a revolution. People are uniting and we've had enough. It's been building and the time is right.
Step up or step aside.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Some of the 99% have figured that out. Others are gullible slow learners.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Is those adds will only HELP Bernie and US.
Don't you just LOVE it?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)The more attention his POLICIES get the better.
GET IT? ISN"T it GREAT?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... his policies. They are going to attack him on his self proclaimed idelogical identity : socialism . When people hear that he is a self-descrbed socialist no one will pay any attention to his policies . Game over.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The Socalist line doesn't work, otherwise Obama wouldn't have won.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....the socialist line was just a smear and everyone knew it. With bernie it's not a smear, it's the reality.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You're working against your own interests here. Unless you want dems to lose in 2016?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)..... st. Bernie is not the only choice we have. I want a viable candidate - and sanders is the least viable.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"Socalist" (which every democratic canadite has been called and really doesn't trigger people anymore) then you should re-evaluate your position.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)..... there is more than one candidate to be considered? Come on!
Democratic candidates don't call themselves socialists. People understand the difference between a smear and a self proclaimed idelogical orientation . Bernie calls himself a socialist , and that will not be dismissed by voters.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Democratic candidates should all call themselves socialists.
People are seeming to not care about socialism anymore, esp. when it's actually being brought out as "This is what I believe, it's what you've been asking for, you people want socialism and here it is" kind of thing.
Bernie will get the Nomination, will you still be here puffing up about the red scare? Or will you support your own party's nominee?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... jump into the dust bin of history? Quite the tactical master you are! If bernie sanders , or some other self-descrbed socialist gets the nomination , my vote will be the least of your worries!
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... the race wouldn't be about policies it would be about ideologies . What they will say is
Game over. By-by sanders and so long dems.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... and they are plenty smart.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)But thanks, it was getting too predictable. 
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Oh wait, you were serious?
McCarthy called, he wants his red scare back.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)insurance, which is a contractual agreement in which the buyers all contribute to but don't necessarily use until they need it. Then I move on to roads, city parks and other public commons we all use and pay taxes for that we contribute to according to our income or other assets. These are all socialism. Then there are the more obvious social programs, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, public schools etc.. This is what the 1% objects to because they don't need those things so they don't want to pay into them. Yet, they are the first in line when their fortunes fail and they need that socialistic hand out to survive. Ask Ayn Rand. But the most socialistic of our institutions is the military, which is downright communist at times. The MIC don't mind that kind of socialism though because that's the social welfare they have been lapping up and growing fat and rich on since WWII thanks to the taxpayers who have funded it. But they are just parasites because they go out of their way not to pay taxes at all.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)..... you can run a campaign to explain all that stuff to everyone . OR you can run a campaign for president . But you can't do both.
If bernie wants to educate the masses about the true meaning of socialism, fine. He just shouldn't waste everyone's time pretending to be running for president .
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)He's an honest man and he said he's in it to win.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...for president as a self proclaimed socialist , he will be forced to run a campaign where he is continually, defensively , explaining all about socialism and how his socialism will be so much better than Venezuela's socialism . He can tell us all about his hero Eugene Debbs!!
In other words, he won't be running for president , he'll be teaching a political science class that no one wants to attend .
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's about tapping Americans embracing a vaguely refreshing and upbeat feeling. Kinda like it's "morning in America", and the starving homeless people are being shown pictures of food.
Regards,
TWM
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The sort of pictures that focus groups of starving homeless pick most often.
Come to think of it I have a digital camera with a "food" setting, now I know what it's for.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Because it was such a huge fucking lie.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)It was in a war zone and snipers routinely operated in the area. Several people had been killed at or near the airport very recently and the U.S. Secretary of State would make a plum target for Serbian snipers. So make of it what you want.
This is a bullshit "gotcha" to me. If I was landing at an airport where I knew there was a distinct possibility that I might be shot and killed while exiting the plane, my recall of the day might be a bit cloudy as well.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There WERE RPG attacks on helicopters, including one just half an hour before he took his ride, so of course his recollection was cloudy, and he thought his helicopter got hit by RPG fire.
Oddly, though, very few people considered his story of 'enhanced bravery' a "bullshit gotcha". More of an 'unforced error' that was going to make him look better.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)was the target of small arms fire from the ground. The door-gunner in Williams helicopter was returning fire with a mounted machine gun.
Maybe this is just another day at work for an Army helicopter crew -- but for a civilian journalist strapped into a seat next to a machine gun firing out of an open door, this must have been terrifying. Positively insane.
Williams gets a pass in my book.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)To make her look more heroic. It was an Epic Fail. It was also a TOTALLY self inflicted wound which will keep on giving throughout the election cycle.
It was a boneheaded stupid self agrandizing LIE.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)You would allow no room whatsoever for a faulty memory. You must know her very well. You all must have talked about this in detail, I assume. Because otherwise you're just someone carelessly throwing around accusations of lying.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)If she lied she is ethically unfit.
Take yer choice.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I'm looking forward to tularetom applying the same implacably strict standard to outing any and all "liars" no matter the consequences.
By "liar" I mean anyone who is found to have recalled a story in a way that conflicts with the historical facts, without regard to context, substance, or whether it was a genuinely consequential or inconsequential matter.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I mean if we're talking about keeping facts straight, let's not let one slip away right at the start, hmm?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)
kath
(10,565 posts)on both points.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BTW, cheap date states he supports Bernie Sanders in this Presidential primary.
I mention that because I personally need a score card.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)That is what happened. In hee book, and in the press she says sniper fire caused her to have to duck and run. That is not mis-speaking, or remembering wearing a yellow sweater instead of green. It is talking about running under a hail of bullets.
That was s a LIE.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)ER, I meant, an IED.
Sorry.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I often mistake flowers for sniper fire. Doesn't everyone?
Seriously, I don't think anyone could accidentally 'misremember' not being under sniper fire. I remember quite clearly that I have never been under sniper fire.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)But nothing traumatic happened to her so that doesn't fly.
And if the stress of nothing traumatic having happened to her is too much for her, then perhaps she shouldn't be leading the USA as president.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Things like the anniversary of you 6 month first date. Landing in a hail of bullets is not such a scenario.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)And I can't remember that St. Paddy's Day.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I got home from work, and was trying to pull her away from the TV so I could take her out to dinner. She, like everybody else in America but me, was watching OJ Simpson running from the law in his white Bronco.
artislife
(9,497 posts)but I couldn't tell you the date...
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)on Wikipedia when I need it 
artislife
(9,497 posts)That is hysterical!
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)She lied.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Response to cheapdate (Reply #136)
Post removed
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I don't make accusations of lying easily, especially not of a leading Democratic candidate. That's right, I'm partisan that way.
And unless she either admits it or some stronger evidence is shown -- evidence beyond the mere suggestion of a motive, I won't call Hillary Clinton a liar. Psychological research has established beyond any doubt that memory modifies events, supplies details that weren't there, etc. Call her a "liar" if you want, I can't stop you.
But I won't join you, or anyone else, in perpetuating a damaging and unsubstantiated claim about the person who just might be the Democratic nominee.
HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)You have her words and you have the video. They don't match up.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Every lie is a false statement but every false statement isn't a lie. Surely you know this?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)"This ain't no shit, but..."
With that preamble we know not to take the utterance seriously.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)"This ain't no shit, but...(insert appropriate war story here)"
And follow with "I shit you not!"
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Damaging yes. Unsubstantiated, roll the tape.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)She certainly voted for the authorization and the WMD myth was a lie from start to finish.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She went farther and gave Bush authorization to invade regardless of whether there were WMD's or not. She trusted George Bush and Dick Cheney's judgements. Unforgivable. To me it's a moral issue. An estimated one million people died and 5 million displaced. I don't trust her judgement.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 28, 2015, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)
and of the supposed inherent superiority of Western political and economic forms. I believe she considers the expansion and imposition of Western political and economic forms on "less developed" countries her moral duty.
I have a very different (you could even say "radically different"
outlook on these matters.
It's not so much that I don't "trust" her judgment. I think I know fairly well where her judgment lies. It's in a different place from mine.
I didn't support her nomination in 2008 and I'm not supporting her nomination in 2016. (despite merrily's assertion to the contrary.)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)One thing that concerns me about Hil is her propensity to provide her enemies fodder for the most silly, stupid and avoidable reasons. This is one example, her email problem is another...she could have easily avoided the whole email thing by just following the rules and using common sense. Instead she chose to do something that, at the very least, looks suspicious...low hanging fruit for her enemies.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)the email thing is such an unforced err...she should of just followed the same rules as everyone else,past that when confronted she has made it worse instead of being transparent
this sniper fire thing seems so child like,trying to build a resume on things that didn't happen
her policy is bad enough but it seems she makes bad choices in relatively simple circumstances
as you said,low hanging fruit
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)blatantly lying about being under sniper fire? She wasn't and
said she was. She had to admit the BLATANT LIE because there was video PROOF of her arrival. There was no sniper fire, but there was a little girl with flowers who greeted her instead.
A lie is a lie is a lie. Period.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts) cheapdate
(3,811 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the landing and ceremony were completely covered because CBS news was travelling with her.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)The danger flying into Tuzla was very real. Keep hammering on the GOP focus-group tested idea that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy. If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, we're golden. If he doesn't, Hillary is a "LIAR!" will help the GOP considerably and give them cover for their far more dangerous and substantive falsehoods and distortions.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)By lying and was caught.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)because I think that this is a potential deal-breaker for the American people, and even if she wins,
the Republican campaign that attacks her on this issue will hamper her ability to govern and
eliminate the coattails that we desperately need to really move forward.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)and there's no wiggle room here. She's on video and has already admitted she lied.
Give it up. Hillary lied.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)"Liar" is an accusation I don't make unless I'm certain. She was wrong and she said so. Psychology research has absolutely proven that memory modifies events.
Call her a "liar" -- I can't stop you. The GOP thanks you very much. The GOP candidates thank you as well.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)She lied at least twice before then and ultimately blamed her "misstatement" (i.e. lie) on sleep deprivation. What's more illuminating is that she apparently thought she could get away with lying. That would seem to make her either arrogant or delusional. Take your pick.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 28, 2015, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)
as an untrustworthy liar. Not over something as inconsequential as a personal story told on the campaign trail in 2008 about a trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina that took place almost twenty years ago in 1996.
I support Bernie Sanders for the nomination. But Hillary Clinton might very well get it instead. Maybe it doesn't matter to you who wins if it isn't Bernie Sanders. It does to me.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)any worse if Democrats point it out. It is there - part of her history - and if it plays well, the Republicans will use it. It is not new.
By the way, it DOES counter the constantly repeated claim that HRC has already faced the Republican lie machine. In fact, she hasn't - Bill did, but it was a MUCH milder version of the RW echo chamber that he faced in 1992. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 helped them. (Not to mention, he faced a wounded candidate, who was at 39% by election eve -- and below 40 for most of 1992 ) Gore, Kerry and even Obama had far tougher races when they won.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Republicans will. Neither of whose surrogates attacked her the way her surrogates have attacked them.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She called it running and dodging bullets, when she was Walking, and stopping to accept flowers.
She LIED.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Every lie is a false statement but every false statement isn't a lie. Surely, you know this?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Trying to dress up your bonafides by saying you toughed it out running under sniper fire at an airport. A calculated political LIE that returned to bite her because there was VIDEO showing it was totally NOT TRUE.
She LIED, flat out.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)By the way, let's hope Bernie Sanders, who I support, does win the nomination. Because with the way many of his supporters are hammering home the GOP focus-group tested idea that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy and dishonest, we might very well be looking at complete GOP control of the government. Semper Fi.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)And I expect, especially if the teapartiers shut down the govt again.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)But I'd say you're putting all your eggs in one basket.
If Sanders doesn't win the nomination (and I say he might not), then there are no coattails, just a poisoned well and possibly an evangelical, anti-choice, gay-bashing, science-denying, GOP president with a unified GOP congress to approve his dogmatic judicial and administrative appointees and cheer him on while tears up the agreement with Iran, rolls back progress on our relationship with Cuba, kills the Affordable Care Act with a thousand cuts, and who knows what else.
So I won't join you, or anyone else, in perpetuating a damaging and unnecessary slur against the person who just might be the Democratic nominee.
For all her faults and conservative tendencies, she's secular, fiercely pro-choice, pro-science, modestly pro-environment, would appoint some moderately liberal judges to the federal bench, would most likely honor the agreement with Iran and continue rapprochement with Cuba, and she ostensibly believes in the need for functioning government institutions.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)I think liar is better odds than delusional or at least prone to fits of delusion.
I don't see how this defense is supposed to work in the real world. Do you have random fits of false gunfire memories when you have by all reports never been exposed to any such thing?
I don't see how "memory being a tricky thing" is going to explain in a relatable fashion a gap so wide.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)that are destined to forever remain in dispute. Each of us has clear and fixed memories of what took place, who was there, etc. But our stories are incompatible.
My wife sometimes "corrects" my retelling of past events, just as I recall my Grandmother used to "correct" my Grandfather when he would tell us stories of his younger days.
I'm not alone. Memory is malleable. Time and memory modify events, add or subtract details, etc.
Clinton might have deliberately lied, she might be delusional, or she might have just been mistaken. She was speaking in 2008 about a trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina she took in 1996. The airport in Tuzla where she landed had been the scene of intense gun battles very recently. It had just been declared "secured" enough for diplomatic and other necessary flights. Planes landing and taking off had been hit with gunfire very recently. Heavily armed defensive military positions guarded the airport perimeter while heavily armed security guarded the airport grounds. This was the context when she landed that day.
So make what you want of it.
Personally, I think it's immaterial to the question of which candidate has the right ideas to be president. Secondly, I don't think this kind of infighting is helpful or wise for the Democratic Party in general.
I respect your opinion, but my perspective is different.
(P.S. -- I've probably responded to 30 or more challenges in this thread already. My answers are necessarily getting repetitive.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)you supposedly support?
Bernie seems to have some of the least supportive supporters I've ever seen in my entire life. Few to no posts in support or defense of Bernie but plenty in vigorous support or defense of Hillary.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Clinton supporters who make careless, irresponsible, unnecessary, irrelevant, distorted, false, outrageous, and outlandish attacks against Bernie Sanders do so without my support or approval, and in direct conflict with my personal ethics and approach to Democratic politics.
Supposedly.
merrily
(45,251 posts)but not Bernie. But, you knew that. Nor is the Tuzla lie an outrageous or outlandish attack.
Clinton supporters who make careless, irresponsible, unnecessary, irrelevant, distorted, false, outrageous, and outlandish attacks against Bernie Sanders do so without my support or approval, and in direct conflict with my personal ethics and approach to Democratic politics.
Supposedly.
Exactly. Confession is good for the soul, even when unnecessary.
I must wonder: the Hillary supporters who claim to support Bernie--do they not realize we can see their posts? What is the point of the charade anyway?
BTW, I was not trying to be subtle. But, you knew that, too.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)but becomes more common around primaries. I'll call it the "are you now or have you ever been..." line of inquiry.
I have always supported Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton and I have never attacked either candidate. I have occasionally detailed both the positive and negative aspects of Clinton.
Your post is uncharacteristically careless.
I have never characterized the controversy over Tuzla as "outrageous or outlandish." As I used those terms, they referred explicitly to some of the attacks against Sanders. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that I believe infighting over this to be potentially self-defeating, in case Clinton becomes the nominee.
My arguments in this thread are more against what I believe is detrimental infighting than they are arguments "in support" of Clinton. Insofar as they are an "affirmative defense" they are necessarily so because they are addressing a specific argument rather than a generalized criticism of some Clinton supporters.
I've spent more time here addressing your remarks than they are due. When one crosses the line and accuses the other of dishonesty, as you have done here, the window of productive civil debate -- which requires a mutual presumption of honesty and good faith -- is closed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I've already described the pattern.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)for your screen name and compare your posts about Hillary and your posts about Sanders and draw their own conclusions, including, of course, the posts that got you blocked from the Bernie Sanders Group.
This is my last reply to you on this subject.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)of the word "is" is.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)
elleng
(130,895 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts) Segami
(14,923 posts)She is what she is...... a compulsive liar!
Thanks for the refresher Uncle Joe.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)when Bill was running for President, the Republicans were gunning against him from day 1 regarding "bimbo eruptions," years before Monica ever came on the scene.
Now one would think that a President under such scrutiny would be extra careful in his personal behavior, and so that scandal demonstrated extra poor judgment, how could Bill think they wouldn't find out?
With Hillary it wasn't just lying about the sniper fire although that was bad enough but CBS was tagging along on the trip and videoed the entire thing, how could she think the people wouldn't find out?
The lack of veracity definitely comes into play here, but the same can be said for piss poor judgement in both cases.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
xocet
(3,871 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts) 
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I'm shocked she didn't mention she returned fire with her own personal Glock.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
It should be easy to remember if you were being fired on or not. She was lying.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I would remember if they fired.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You remember it
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)sarge43
(28,941 posts)She walked it back which means it didn't. She told a wee fib.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I've never had the pleasure of approaching an airport where being shot out of the sky was a real possibility. I would expect that there is quite a bit of context, and armaments, that are out of the frame of this picture.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That were proven to be wrong. Ran from the plane, no ceremony, no flowers. Amazing what news footage and video shows. Brian Williams paid a higher price than she has.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)You're also smart enough to know that memory and recollection of past events is often wrong. That's a well established, universal truth. The work that's been done on eyewitness accounts in courtroom proceedings is very well known at this point.
If you want to call Hillary Clinton a "liar", then I can't stop you.
Just do me a favor? The first time that we learn that someone you support has offered a version of past events that contradicts the record in some way, would you please make sure to publicly denounce them as a LIAR!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)happened." closer is a bridge too far to expect me to call it Ana innocently misremembered accounting of events.
jkbRN
(850 posts)And therefore is a lie.
Do you need some definitions to help clarify your cloudy thinking?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Every lie is a false statement but every false statement isn't a lie. I'd elaborate further, but surely that's not necessary? I think you know well the difference between a lie (knowing and deliberate) and an unintentional falsehood. I assume you do.
jkbRN
(850 posts)She was unaware or had "too cloudy" of a mindset to recall the facts you can read my statement above which has already addressed that faulty notion.
Please read and process my comments before you post a flawed rebuttal b/c you are repeating your argument which I already responded to--changing the words doesn't help your case. 
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I'm flat out asserting that you're making claims based on knowledge you can't possibly have.
jkbRN
(850 posts)she lied.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)You propose that all false statements are "lies". Or to put it another way, "lie" is just another word for a false statement.
Is that correct?
jkbRN
(850 posts)Your statements revolving around her mind being "too cloudy" or that false statements don't always mean that a person lied is absolute crap in this situation.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, if her experience was actually traumatic then she would have a reason to not be able recall the correct events. But she didnt have a traumatic event, and she was the one that experienced the event. With these facts there is no question that she lied.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)that memory modifies events, supplies details that weren't there, etc. It's true with or without trauma.
Call her a "liar" if you want, I can't stop you. But I won't be joining you or anyone else in portraying a leading Democratic candidate as an untrustworthy liar. Not over something as inconsequential as a personal story told on the campaign trail in 2008 about a trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina that took place almost twenty years ago in 1996.
Are we done here?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I was a soldier. I am a psychologist. I work with vets with PTSD.
You are not correct in your application of the psychology of memory in this case. There was no trauma. There was no immediate danger. No one else present had any 'memory modifications' including her daughter who was by her side the entire time.
The truth is that you do not want to accept that she lied. If you do, then you as a party loyalist know that you may have to vote for her in the general liar or not. Fine, that is your issue. But for most of us including millions not on DU, this was a big lie. It borders on stolen valor.
She got caught in the lie. She admits, in typical narcissist fashion, that it was a lie. You can attempt to change reality and change us or you can accept the reality and adjust your expectations accordingly. If you accept that she lied, what changes really for you? Do you intend to vote for her in the primary whether she lied or not? Do you intend to vote for in the general (assuming she gets that far) whether she lied or not? Does it change your opinion of her as a candidate if you accept that she lied or not?
Many Democrats still love and respect Bill Clinton. He still lied, and they accept him in spite of that lie.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)have had an enormous influence our understanding of memory. The findings of these researchers has furthermore had a significant influence on the codified evidentiary standards used in many states across the nation. I'm surprised this is news to you.
By the way, as I've said many times in this thread, I'm supporting Bernie Sanders for the nomination.
And no, whether or not a personal story she told on the campaign trail in 2008 about a trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina that took place almost twenty years ago in 1996 was completely accurate doesn't really change my opinion toward Hillary Clinton in any meaningful way.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I also know the clinical reality.
It doesn't matter if you support Sanders.
It doesn't matter if you change your opinion.
It does matter that you insist on pushing your version of events and manipulation of facts on others when the reality is quite clear. Sadly, Clinton lied.
If it was in isolation, a single event, in her long public history, sure I would cut her slack.
It is not. She has a history of lying and obfuscating.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Since you said this --
Psychological research has established beyond any doubt that memory modifies events, supplies details that weren't there, etc. It's true with or without trauma.
What about the story she told about the reason she was named Hillary?
What was the trauma involved with that story?
Or was that story void of trauma?
It sort of reminds me of that one restaurant scene:
Patron: Waiter, oh waiter, this spoon is dirty.
Waiter: What!? Which spoon is dirty?
Patron: The spoon for my soup.
Waiter: That spoon isn't dirty, it was just washed this morning.
Let me see it.
Patron: See? See, it's dirty.
Waiter: Oh my god, I'll have to go tell the cook.
*Walks in to kitchen and returns with the cook*
Cook: What is it?
Waiter: This man says his spoon is dirty.
Cook: What! His spoon is dirty?!
Let me see it.
This spoon's not dirty.
Patron: Yes, yes it is.
Cook: No, no it's not.
Patron: Yes, yes it is, look at it closer in the light.
Cook: Oh, oh, ooohh, nooooo.
*Cook clutches temporal lobe*
Oh, the trauma!
The ol' war wound is acting up!
Waiter: See now what you've done to him?
The dishwasher quit last week and the cook has had to wash all the dishes himself by hand.
Now, just look at him!
Patron: Oh, I'm sorry, gee, okay, the spoon's good enough for me.
It's not that dirty.
Cook: Are you sure?
Ooooh, ooooh.
*Still clutching his temporal lobe*
Patron: Yes, yes, see, I'm eating my soup with it. It's good enough, yum yum, this soup tastes good.
Cook: Oh. Oh okay then, just as I thought.
*Cook walks back in to kitchen*
*Waiter walks to another table*
Patron: I guess it's a good thing I didn't mention the fork!
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Memory is a malleable thing. There are stories from my brother and my upbringing that are destined to remain forever in dispute -- the two of us both having clear and fixed, yet mutually exclusive memories of the same event.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And the videos pretty much disqualify this just being a case of misremembering an event.
Yet, your claims of her memory being "malleable" leads others to the inevitable conclusion . . . she honestly can't remember what she said in the past.
Thus making whatever she says today forgettable.
That's not a great way of supporting someone to become the leader of our nation.
As for the memories of your brother and you differing, that is simply because you are TWO different people, with TWO distinct perspectives on events in your personal history.
Two different ids, two different minds, two different people.
I was the middle son in my family, and I know from experience after talking to my other brothers that my older brother's memories of some family events differ significantly from my memories of those same events.
And both of our memories of those events are completely different from my younger brother's memories of those same events.
But, that has more to do with our differing ages affecting our perspectives of what we think happened and how young we all were when those events happened, than it is being a matter of what the actual facts are of what really happened.
Being 3 different individuals, all 3 of us have different memories of what occurred due to our 3 different perspectives.
That's not quite the same thing as what took place concerning Bosnia with just 1 individual, Hillary.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Having conflicting memories and one person is lost on me.
Also, I did not support Clinton's nomination in 2008 and I am not supporting her nomination in 2016 -- all for reasons that have nothing to do with a personal story she told in 2008 about a trip she made in 1996.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Whereas 1 person having 2 different stories about the very same event tends to muddy the waters of whether that person actually remembers the story correctly now, or is just trying to cover up something they previously said that was unbelievable to begin with.
Okay, I understand that you are not supporting her now or did then.
But, it isn't going to make a very good bumper sticker that is very effective to help get someone elected whenever you have to print "Psychological research has established . . . " on the bumper sticker.
Frankly, her story about dodging bullets in Bosnia was unbelievable to begin with.
But, there were other stories, stories about how she became to be named Hillary, that were also unbelievable.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)and I am amazed at your ridiculous persistence.
"Every lie is a false statement but every false statement isn't a lie." Well, this false statement was a lie and, unless there's something wrong with your brain, you know it was just as well as everyone else. Your continuing denial of the completely obvious truth is going beyond fanatical and getting into the strange and worrisome.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)especially toward a leading Democratic candidate.
You are more than welcome to conclude that Clinton knowingly and willingly misrepresented the truth. You certainly don't need any permission or approval from me. Furthermore, you're free to shout it from the rooftops, I can't stop you.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume your evidence that she lied is essentially just you believe she had a motivation, so therefore it's so.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Actually, she claimed that she "misspoke" which is what a slimy politician claims when they're caught lying and don't have the courage to just come out and admit it.
"Misspoke" sort of sounds like she didn't have control over what she was saying, like a demon had control of her tongue or something. It sounds a lot more politically correct than lying.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Keep hammering on the GOP focus-group tested idea that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy. If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, we're golden. If he doesn't, Hillary is a "LIAR!" will help the GOP considerably and give them cover for their far more dangerous and substantive falsehoods and distortions.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Now you're conceding that she lied, but we can't mention that, even though it's true, because we would be helping some lying republican win the presidency.
Therefore, unless Sanders is nominated, our choice will be between two liars, but "our" liar is acceptable, whereas "theirs" is not.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I voted for a lying Clinton.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I never "conceded" she lied, nor will I unless she either admits it or some stronger evidence is shown -- evidence beyond the mere suggestion of a motive. Psychological research has established beyond any doubt that memory modifies events, supplies details that weren't there, etc. Call her a "liar" if you want, I can't stop you.
But I won't join you, or anyone else, in perpetuating a damaging and unsubstantiated claim about the person who just might be the Democratic nominee.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Of course, being a slimy Clinton, she couldn't come right out and say "I lied", but this is as close as she could get without actually mouthing the words.
"I said some things that weren't in keeping in what I knew to be the case..."
Those are her words from April 2008.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)So our duty then is to let everyone know that Hillary Clinton is a "slimy" liar?
Ino
(3,366 posts)Your refusal to accept what's staring you in the face is hillary-ous! 
840high
(17,196 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Every lie is a false statement, but every false statement isn't a lie.
The GOP thanks you for giving more life to their focus-group tested idea that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy. The GOP candidates also appreciate the cover for their far more substantive falsehoods and distortions.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)"I misspoke! I meant to say there were snipe hunters all around!"
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Made it back to camp around daylight.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)They're preparing tanker trucks full of water to pour on her 24/7. Stop acting like this is something the GOP forgot about until it was brought up on DU. It's fucking pathetic.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)that I somehow believe, "this is something the GOP forgot about until it was brought up on DU".
Hell, the post I assume you're referring to even went as far as to explicitly say that the GOP was instrumental in giving the "untrustworthy" idea its legs.
In any event, no, I don't believe that.
But I won't join you, or anyone else, in perpetuating a damaging claim about the person who just might be the Democratic nominee. I support Bernie Sanders' nomination. But he might not win. Then what? Fuck Hillary Clinton that lying piece of shit?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)If she actually did go through a traumatic event I could understand a lack of clarity of the sequence of events or something. But she didn't, so it's a lie. Point blank.
This is indefensible, please don't even try.
Ino
(3,366 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)That's a nice, tight frame. What might we see in a broader look around the airport? The airport had been the scene of intense gun battles very recently. It had only recently been secured enough for diplomats to land there. Snipers and gunfire were operating in the vicinity. People had recently been shot. Aircraft had been hit.
If we backed up a bit, we'd see serious defensive military units all around the airport perimeter. We'd see heavily armed security everywhere inside the airport.
What do you think we'd find? Airport taxi service waiting to take tourists to the Holiday Inn?
Ino
(3,366 posts)You would find Hillary leisurely strolling across the airfield, accepting flowers from a little girl, with her very own young daughter.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If you have military experience as you claim, then you as do I know that if that base was not secure, then the First Lady and her daughter would never have been allowed to land. There would never have been a diplomatic greeting, and children with flowers would never have been allowed on that tarmac. That they were says conclusively that they were in no immediate or present danger.
840high
(17,196 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)No way would the Clinton administration allow them to fly into any danger.
Years ago in late 2006, a group of us in the John Kerry group met John Kerry. It was shortly before he was going to go an a trip to Iraq. When some one wished him well going to that dangerous place, he assured us that he, like any of the Congressional visitors, were well protected. It was the soldiers who were at risk. If that was true for a Senator on the SFRC, it was even truer for the First Lady and First Daughter.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)It was made about a trip she took in 1996. It was made by a person running for President trying to pad their resume.
That's WORSE than Brian Williams' shitty lie.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Every false statement is a lie. That's what a lie is, a false statement. Right?
That's what I've been told here multiple times in no uncertain terms.
Brian Williams was in a helicopter that was receiving small arms fire from the ground. He was strapped into a seat next to a door-gunner who was returning fire with his machine gun out the open door. No bigee.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Lost on you huh?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Who is "he"? Barack Obama? Bill Clinton? Brian Williams? Who/what were we talking about?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)She could have told the truth and it still would have been dangerous
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)why would the Clintons allow Chelsea to walk out on that tarmac, facing possible sniper fire? Something isn't adding up here.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Looks can be deceiving. The Tuzla airport was the scene of intense gun battles very recently. It had just been declared "secured" enough for diplomatic and other flights. Planes had been shot at and and hit very recently.
What's not shown in that photo are the heavily armed defensive military positions guarding the perimeter. Or the heavily armed security inside the airport grounds.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They aren't taking cover. If there was sniper fire in the area the plane wouldn't have even landed. She fabricated a story to give the impression she was 'heroic'...iow, she lied. Deliberately.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Time. Space. Try to keep up Einstein.
I've been on a cruise ship Still doesn't mean I survived the titanic.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)argument is so intellectually taxing: "Clinton LIAR!"
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)so I will ask the question again. If there was ongoing sniper fire on that tarmac and the area was still very dangerous, why would the Clintons allow their only child to fly into that area in the first place? I've never seen a good answer to that question.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I'm not privy to that. Nor am I privy to Clinton's personal thoughts in 2008 on the day she made the disputed claim. The fact that some specific details of Clinton's recall of that day in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzogovenia in 1996 conflict with the facts is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether or not she knowingly and willfully lied.
But personally, it's not an important question for me, and the answer doesn't change one thing about what we do know about Clinton's positions on the issues.
I support Bernie Sanders for the nomination based on the issues, and my objections to Clinton have nothing to do with a personal story she told in 2008 about an event that happened almost 20 years ago in 1996.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)her mind, but won't hazard a guess as to why she would put her daughter at such great risk in a live fire zone?
Sometimes a duck is just a duck.
Quack.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I'm not probing "the deep psychology of her mind" -- those who confidently insist she "lied" are. I'm insisting the opposite, that her mind is unknowable.
R B Garr
(16,951 posts)a No-Fly zone. And there was sniper fire on the hills, and that's really all she was talking about. I bet a lot of military mucky-mucks had to scramble to make her visit happen. Most people are not going to dwell on this much. Her explanation, including that there was no ceremony are accurate enough that this will be seen as a silly ploy. The girl on the tarmac was cute, but it was no greeting ceremony for someone of her standing in the world as First Lady. The Hillary hating is really just bizarre at this point.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Tell that to the soldiers suffering from PTSD.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And as part of a prepared speech, not an off the cuff comment. For another, she said, "I remember landing under sniper fire." That is unequivocal. No one mistakes flowers for bullets. Hell, Sinbad, a comedian, recollected it correctly. Third, she did not retract until every network had shown video of her being handed flowers.
Finally, if her recollections are really that divergent from reality, if her assessment of events in a foreign nation are that far below that of a comedian, that is a problem on its own.
Also, it seems there is some controversy about how safe that airport was. You say it was dangerous. However
According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996 and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, below, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102989.html
I don't think this is a bs gotcha at all. However some of the rationalizations might meet that standard.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I can't believe you are trying to defend this, especially by using the fact people did die there.
Take a moment and think about what you're saying.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Or, she just flat out fucking lied LOL- Oh poor poor Hill
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Try to share reality with us for a little while.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Give it a rest.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Since when is the truth a smear?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)SINGLE DAY HE WAS THERE! He walked patrols around the entire war zone and one of his jobs was picking up the dead. I have NEVER forgiven her for her bullshit lie and I never will. Of course, you can kick my ass. Apparently her divinity trumps our reality with some. If she really wants to be a veteran, she can have his nightmares. She lied.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)pro-Bernie??? I mean except in that it points out that truth can't be a primary factor if you want to support Clinton....
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)This is a Hillary hate post based on something she did a decade ago. Like I said give it a rest. There's already 100+ of these a day. Do we really have to whine about something nearly a decade old?
Maybe you would like me to post about mistakes Bernie made as mayor of Burlington...should we put a log on the fire for those too?
The lack of maturity on display lately is just staggering.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)I am not whining. She lied to appear heroic. When a soldier does it it is called stolen valor and it is vile and a HUGE character flaw that should disqualify anyone so revealed from public office. And the fact that she thinks she can run for president with this as part of her legacy speaks of a sense of entitlement that makes me want to puke. And when she turns tail and gives up her run-then and ONLY then will I give it a rest.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)The OP is a whine about this Hillary mistake in another post....that's whining in a nutshell dude.
Oh and HUGE! Yeah, something we all did nearly decade ago is HUGE.
I hope you hold your guy to the same standard.
After getting elected mayor with the slogan “Burlington is Not for Sale,” Sanders attempted to cut a deal with developers for hotel construction on the city’s waterfront and other projects in its wetlands. Activists built a campaign with the slogan “Burlington’s Still Not for Sale” that effectively halted the worst development plans.
Take your history lessons somewhere else. Try researching your candidate instead of trolling threads. Bernie did great things in Burlington, but clearly his first shot was a swing and a miss. Does that mean he has bad judgement? No, it means he made a mistake. Jeez we should give him some slack...it was soo long ago.
At least I do my homework. I don't judge a candidate based on a few mistakes that people want to troll around forever. Trust me the waterfront deal isn't the only one he made. Would you like to hear about his nuclear waste mistake? Or do you just reserve ancient history blather for Hillary?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251605502
Take a civics class or something...people aren't perfect.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)I did not.
Sanders did not.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)and irrelevant too! Congrats on the daily double! I'm sure there will be some lovely parting gifts for you..
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Taking a civics class will inform us of what here?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Sometimes the truth Berns.
Logical
(22,457 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)no one to call BS on your Bernie self confirming feedback loop.
Logical
(22,457 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I just think the argument should be different.....less anti-Hillary and more focused on what he accomplished as mayor of Burlington...you can see my research in my journal.
The pro Bernie argument in my mind should be telling the story of how he governed a blighted city full of opposition city council and turned it into one of the most livable cities in the country. Not only that, in the process he CREATED tools many cities use today and people he brought in went on to govern the city for 31 of 32 years after that. THAT's an argument for Bernie! This MSM stuff I find an irritating distraction lol.
Hillary has no counter, neither does Biden.
If I get terse with people it's because I think the argument is lazy. It's too easy to rant about crap we see in MSM every day...I prefer arguments based on real accomplishments and failures.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Signing off on a fraudulent loan application is a crime.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Is it a crime to lie about your ethnicity on college and job applications?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)you remind me of a former senator from Massachusetts who is a Professor of Phrenology on the side ...
Of course, Bill questioned Obama's ethnicity too. Maybe it comes with contact with the clintons. Nothing like whitesplaining on the old board
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Just her vague recollections of maybe being told that.
Even if her 1/32 Cherokee claim was true (and even members of her family deny it) it wouldn't be enough to qualify her to claim that status on college and job applications.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)People are embarrassed when they don't fulfill their pledges
They might even say that they didn't pledge, or they might fulfill it only partially.
We would always tread lightly in those circumstances.
They don't normally have reporters exposing the fact that they didn't fulfill it.
Unfulfilled pledges happen all the time for financial reasons.
Newsmax and the Daily Caller spun this story into existence back in April.
This is just smear and spin.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They fulfilled their pledges, but the pledge amounts were intentionally overstated in order to secure the loan:
----------------
<...>
Two people whose pledges are listed as confirmed in the loan agreement told VTDigger that their personal financial records show their pledges were overstated. Neither were aware that the pledges were used to secure the loan.
<...>
People’s United Bank stipulated that at the time of the closing in December 2010, the school would provide a report as part of the loan agreement detailing “fundraising collections, commitments and grants equal to $2,270,000” and information that would satisfy the bank that pledges were “valid and enforceable commitments of the respective donors and granting parties.”
Read more:
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)people are saying things like "I can't recall"
While XXmay have given Sanders a “hopeful” impression about the second $30,000, he does not recall telling her it was a “signed and sealed” pledge.
The second person Former trustee XXXXX "does not recall" ....he then reviews his records However, he doesn’t recall pledging at the $5,000 level. After reviewing his own financial records, XXXXXX confirmed he did make a pledge and donation, but not for $5,000. He did not wish to share the actual amount of his contribution.
I've lived this many times, and I, like XXXXXXX was the contact point......and I've seen people rewrite history in circumstances like this
With XXXXXXX......if Jane isn't responsible , then XX is.
This is all just assertion
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That was required at the time of the closing of the loan.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)you don't know in advance that someone will not honor your pledge.
When it comes to enforcing pledges, timidity is often the rule.
Jane Sanders may have been too nice for that part of the job
and that is why they asked her to leave.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)It doesn't make a person electable or likable.
Good grief, of all the great people out there, must we really accept a person who can't just be honest?
Oh, PS: Nobody cares about Bernie's wife's thing what-evur, yanno.
Kthaxbai
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)All the people who died might complain about how their lives were sacrificed for the sake of political expediency. But, of course, they're dead, so they can't. Phew! More bullets dodged by our brave hero!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Before calling Jane a criminal.
Just sayin.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)There are two thresholds for proving that criminal fraud occurred under federal statutes, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney for Vermont Greg Waples, who has prosecuted such cases. Waples discussed what constitutes fraud using hypothetical examples, and did not address the Burlington College loan.
First, there must be a showing that the fraud was “knowingly and intentionally” committed, he said. Misstatements that result from ignorance or negligence don’t constitute criminal fraud, but could result in a civil action, Waples said.
In the case of Burlington College, it appears that Sanders overstated the pledges in the loan document, and misstated the nature of the $1 million bequest. Whether Sanders made misstatements intentionally or out of ignorance or negligence is unknown. VTDigger was unable to interview Sanders or Plunkett, and additional records were not available.
Secondly, prosecutors would need to show that the fraud was material, meaning that it could have impacted the plaintiff’s decision (in a case against Sanders or Burlington College, the plaintiff would be People’s United Bank). A showing of materiality doesn’t rely on whether the fraud did influence a plaintiff’s decision, only that it could have, Waples said.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150914045133/http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)prosecutors are always wary of going after the spouses of sitting Senators.
This will get more publicity and Bernie and Jane will need to explain what happened.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)is running for President.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In this case it's the right wing of the Democratic party doing it.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Brock is back to his old tricks!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Currently she is working for his campaign and she accounted for all of his reported assets when he filed his financial disclosure form.
Bernie had almost no assets when he filed the form.
There's a lot here. I don't want to give away too much, but a little birdie whom I speak to on a regular basis is doing some digging and it ain't pretty.
Stay tuned.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How positively Rovian of you.
Nothing like swift boating Dem candidates on DU.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)by the way, have you seen how much they love you on our Super Sister site? I' pretty sure the Hindenburg disaster has been pinned on you by this point, and you may also be responsible for the 1918 flu outbreak.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)These people are seriously unhinged, I'm just glad they don't know my real name or they could track me down irl.
I went back over my posting history to see if I ever gave anything away and I think I'm safe.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)and apparently I'm in good company.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I didn't know you were on their list.
That sucks but yes, you're in very good company.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts) HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But oh my god, get a look at what they say in a venue where they can say anything they'd like. Their reasoning is sub-par, to say the least. And they all happily agree with what any of the others post. DU has been called an echo chamber often enough, but what I've seen there in the last couple of days is the rhetorical output you'd expect from stage IV glue sniffers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Who the hell doesn't know the difference between communism and democratic socialism?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)cheating and that pedophile things that they are trying to bury in Florida are true. Then there is the quid pro quo that he's been doing with the foundation and there are the rumors of fucked up bookkeeping ... shall I continue? Leave families and spoiuses alone. All of them
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)how about an in depth listing of all pledges and actual donations to the Clinton foundation between 2009-2013 and that's for starters
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The only reason why his attacks in 2004 were effective was because Kerry chose not to respond.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Good thing Bernie and his supporters know how to fight back against the swift boaters on and off DU.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)If he was really as good as people say, he would be getting paid the big bucks as a campaign advisor.
Instead he's just a talking head on TV.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)Did you really just say/type that???????????????????????????????????
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I know people who know people who know people... and they say...
Logical
(22,457 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
[center][/center]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Clinton's spouse, other than where it related to Hillary on policy, but if it's okay, this will be a no contest as to which spouse carries the most baggage.
So thanks for opening the gates, I'm fine with comparing spouses now that Hillary supporters have started it off.
This will not turn out well for Hillary. But I intend to bookmark where it began because when the whining begins that 'spouses are off limits' I will need to be able to point out whose idea it was.
Imagine associating with David Brock!! That still stuns me to the core re Hillary. She will be able to get past that particular association easily. Most of us Dems are not of the opinion that WE should act like REPUBLICANS in order to WIN. We oppose their dirty tricks and so does the public in general..
jkbRN
(850 posts)
Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'correcttherecord'. Last time the little birdie whispered in the ear of a couple of reporters, he helped raise over one million dollars for Bernie's campaign. Poor Brock, we haven't heard from him since.
Did you know that the army of Americans who are working to change the direction of this country, are planning to raise money for Bernie every time a new smear mongering campaign begins??
Why waste all that dark money, which Bernie won't take, as he's not for sale like most of our politicians, but hey, if they want to spend it, we are going to put it to good use.
So let us know what the little birdie has to say, Bernie's campaign is growing and will need as much honest money as it can get and I can't think of a better way to raise it than destroying what is so corrosive to our political system, smear campaigns, so far all based on lies and all exposed as such each time they have appeared.
Logical
(22,457 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)Jesus y'all are pathetic with these smear attempts.
Dismiss a lie but make up on untruth.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)Let's discuss Bill and the cigar.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But I'm glad you posted this.
Here's last night's thread for anyone interested:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251626359#post15
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)crazy ass thread
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I can not support her
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)When I hear this particular snippet of history I always remember a certain blog post.. And snicker...
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/03/23/yelling-when-they-are-weak/#comment-567869
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That blog was heavily into Hope and Change when that was written back in 2008, now they are fully in the tank for Camp Weathervane.
7962
(11,841 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Even the bravest among us pale in her shadow.
In the Navy they tell of the night she flew back to the USS Carl Vinson after escorting A-6Es on a night time raid somewhere near the Straight of Hormuz... where is classified.
Her RIO dead, the canopy behind her shattered, the wind howling in her ears. She flew through a hail storm so violent it smashed the Tomcat's radome like an eggshell... she made it back to the flight deck with no radar, no radio, no INS, to a perfect three-wire trap. They were going to raise the barricade for her but when they started she boltered the big injured F-14, rocked her wings in a salute, and flew back into the pattern for another approach; her afterburners lighting the flight deck and surrounding ocean.
Most people have no idea she was ever a Tomcat pilot... the FIRST FEMALE Tomcat pilot, but I understand that info is being declassified so it can be turned into a campaign ad.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)A Lannister always gets payback.
And payback is ...
askew
(1,464 posts)When Balloon-Juice is on, it's hysterical.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I've also forwarded it to all my friends and family members (well, those who are cynical enough to appreciate it anyway).
I can't remember when I so much.
At some point it should be posted here without comment. Just to see who reacts how.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Be my guest if you wish to post it, I'm not enough of a sadomasochist to do that particular bit of self immolation.
Milliesmom
(493 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)was trying to assassinate her. After all, she said that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda when she voted for the Iraq war.
Response to peacebird (Original post)
ronnykmarshall This message was self-deleted by its author.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)it is no longer necessary to go to The DU*****r to keep up with random acts of idiocy.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and didn't back down until the video surfaced.
What the (R)s will do with this will make Swift Boating look like a ticker tape parade.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)How can anyone believe her, EVER, when she is SO good at lying?
"I said some things that weren't in keeping in what I knew to be the case..."
840high
(17,196 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Lawyer speak for lying.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)and not even good at appearing to be sorry about it
"I'm embarrassed..."
That's what you are if you forgot to flush the toilet....
She should be downright ashamed, and I'm sure these videos would have run against her, if Bernie hadn't gotten the nomination for Democratic candidate for President... oh wait, I have to save that statement until later so as not to offend
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)and given time and number can be fatal.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Voters are not comfortable with a candidate who fabricates and panders. I remember pointing out Hillary's (Annie Get Your Gun) duplicity when she was in PA and telling people she used to go hunting when she was a girl - pandering to the gun enthusiasts
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of an alert. Pointing out the facts behind her "sniper fire" gaffe doesn't even begin to approach that level of paranoia.
Myself, I find the "We came, we saw, he died" bon mot to be orders of magnitude more offensive, given the abject suffering inflicted by the United States on innocent Libyan men, women and children so that she could gloat over killing Khaddafi.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)what was on film. Then the admitted that she knew the truth but told a different story about the events in question.
No assasination necessary.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Character assassination is a Hillary supporter implying Sanders might be a pedophile.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)So do you agree with Clinton and the Republicons that:
Fracking is important for oil company profits and to hell with the contaminated water of the peons.
The XL Pipeline should be pushed thru in spite of environment concerns. What's a little oil spill here or there?
The TPP is important to give corporations unlimited rights over people and will move jobs overseas to better the profits of the all important corporations.
The IWar was important to insure that oil companies got a chance at Iraq's oil. The 1 million deaths, well....
College tuition should be handled by making the states promise to keep tuition down.
Which issues is Sen Sanders afraid to speak to?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)it seems, which bothers me more, as she may be delusional and not know whether she experienced something or not. That's the sort of person we don't issue gun permits to, let alone nukes.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Just when you think she's a political novice, she takes it three notches down. Why hasn't she managed to burn all this footage?!!! Whyyyyyyy?!!!
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)
abakan
(1,819 posts)If Mrs. Clinton, had arrived anywhere there was sniper fire, someone besides Mrs. Clinton, would have noted it somewhere. There is no record of this happening, except in the mind of the teller. I believe being the First Lady, she would have been traveling with some press and surely they would have reported it. Sorry, Mrs. Clinton, none of this passes the smell test. Not the original telling or the subsequent walk back.
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)who in his original mention of the story said he was in the OTHER helicopter (thanks to Jon Stewart )
Video works both ways. Brian got punished for misremembering. Hillary meh.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Remember:
Chelsea Clinton was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11.
She claims to have been instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process.
"I think they met with the leadership of Congress, with the President and with me and they thanked me publicly for the role I had played."
But Mrs Clinton's version of events has been challenged by Peter King, an Ulster Unionist Party negotiator at the Good Friday talks in 1998, who said: "Hillary Clinton was totally invisible at the actual negotiations.
"As far as I am concerned, Mrs Clinton was as relevant to peace in Northern Ireland as Tony Blair's wife or the ex-wife of Bertie Ahern [the Irish prime minister]."
Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party in 1998, told The Daily Telegraph last week that Mrs Clinton's claims were a "wee bit silly".
Her family was dead broke when they left the White House.
She was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
AND my latest favorite...
Was her email server "wiped" clean before giving it to the FBI.
“I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)as the nominee. Karl Rove couldn't have done a better job at sand bagging Hillary. Any R can bring any of these up and she'll be defending/back peddling her remarks until the voters lose interest in her, assuring an R victory. Its the reason why she lost to Obama.
She's a big time liability for the Democratic Party but they want her anyway. Makes no sense.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Politicians could embellish or in some cases outright fabricate stories. Then cable came along, and with that cable news and the 24 hour news cycle. Paper media began to be bought out by large corporations that could easily become under the influence of the highest bidder. Then a nifty little thing called the internet came into existence and with that more news outlets, not just main stream but anybody could report on stories and provide endless content around the clock. Social media followed and now the news could spread exponentially and even fast than ever before. Through all of this technology advances allowed a single individual to capture, records and share news in a blink of an eye. But, somehow THERE ARE POLITCIANS TODAY WHO STILL DO NOT KNOW THIS!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)Kickity, kick, kick...