Careless Hillary - Page 3

I wouldn't call it somersaults but I do agree with a lot of what he says.

Reagan wasn't careless? Beirut, Iran-Contra (Which contributed to the crack epidemic in inner cities. This is fact.), "Just say no" as an alternative to drug rehab, Libya.

Whose bar is set lower? Trump's or Hillary's? It's easy to say that both suck so I'm not going to vote at all but what about those who do vote? Someone is going to become president. It's not like by not voting neither will take office. Not voting is not even a protest as both parties don't mind low voter turnout. A candidate would prefer that someone not vote at all over voting for the other guy. So if someone is going to win then what's wrong with trying to make sure that that person isn't the worst of two choices? Maybe that isn't the ideal scenario but it is reality.

No, I don't count Reagan as careless in Iran-Contra, nor did he shy away from accountibility. That is not to say it won't still be considered for certain other players, to be considered as scandalous. As for the bombing of Beirut, how could that have been careless by Reagan when it was a multi-national peacekeeping effort that would have required prescience abilities. In fact the blame was placed firmly at Iran supporting terrorist, Hezbollah.

Every bad turn of events can not be called "careless" just because some of our enemies succeed. However, the FBI investigation did make the  call of carelessness, for Hillary. If that was the bar, then I'd have to take Jimmy Carter off for the disasterous, and botched helicopter rescue attempt of American hostages in Iran. I certainly don't think that happened because he was careless. I gave him the benefit of being unlucky, didn't I?

"Just say No", was Nancy Reagan's mission using adverstising against the war on drugs, as all first Ladies will find a cause to champion. If the lack of success of such an idea becomes more obvious to us today, as evidenced in the growing legality of marijuana in our states, and because of something that wasn't apparent decades ago, then it also doesn't come as a surprise to me, that no one had that crystal ball. You can't blame it on carelessness, just because a marketing idea didn't work. You can figure that one out for yourself, I am sure.
 

Hillary's is the bar that moves. Trump's has remained constant. Hillary supporters keep moving her bar. Trump just loses supporters because of where his bar is set.

While not voting will most likely be welcomed by either party if it is a vote against them, there is at least the comfort of remaining true to one's self.

Reagan held himself accountable? He answered "I don't recall" a million times. They worked with drug dealers to fund the Contras and started the crack epidemic. This has been established. That is carelessness as far as how Reagan thought about poor black people.

The Marine barracks guards had to keep their weapons unloaded. The idea that an attack was not something that was going to happen is ridiculous. The bombing was a direct response to the Navy shelling that preceded the Marines arrival. Then, two days after the bombing, we invaded Grenada so everyone would forget about Beirut...or it was just a coincidence. Hundreds died and Reagan is worshiped. Yet somehow Benghazi is worse. And Reagan turned tail and ran from his failed, and careless, attempt at Middle Eastern intervention. He made the mistake of thinking that he could drop some bombs on them and they would be pacified.

Just say no replaced drug treatment. Drug treatment worked but Reagan preferred to funnel more drug war money into law enforcement. Again, that shows his careless attitude towards the poor and minorities; the ones who were most affected by his drug war policies. Yes, it was careless because drug treatment was working so why change to something that was not proven? You don't have to see the future to know that is idiotic. Maybe Nancy's astrologer told her it would work.

And remaining true to oneself is a good thing but there is also reality. The reality for me is that Trump will do more harm than Clinton. I'm not a woman but I could see how a woman would be moved by the possibility of him nominating Bible thumping Supreme Court Justices. Minorities probably see him as harmful to their lives as well.

I think you must have a major or minor history degree? We clearly are going to continue with our differences in context. History, as told by historians has to be aware of the power their influence can be in the manor of the telling, since the story is never just about facts.

I will have to very careful in any future posts, seeing how your forte is plied and favored in your replies!

Facts can be selective, too. Why aren't you mentioning the fact that Reagan was motivated by his duty and desire to free and protect the lives of American hostages? Now, what happens to the narrative of carelessness then, and when you contrast Hillary's narrative with Benghazi?

I would love to have you do the complete Hillary history of her accomplishments and other lesser deeds. I am sure I could learn quite a lot from such an exercise.

Now, about being a woman, that is precisely why Hillary is such a disappointment for me. How pathetic for us women that it will be her who will likely be first to be elected for the presidency. God knows, how we deserve better.

What American hostages was Reagan concerned about? In Grenada? There were no hostages there. He ordered the invasion because he thought, or at least claimed, Americans might be in danger, not that they were in danger. There is no evidence they were in danger or could not leave. Margaret Thatcher told him not to invade Grenada. He went ahead and Americans lost their lives because of it. All just to "get a win."

Does this excuse Hillary? No. It just means that she shouldn't be held to a different standard that everyone else.

Hillary's accomplishments? She has a Wiki page for everyone to see. Again though, we have the double standard. What were Reagan's accomplishments before becoming president? Gov of California and president of SAG (a union). OK, she was Sec of State and a US senator.

Why are her accomplishments viewed as inferior to those of Obama, GWB or even her husband before becoming president? If angels governed men we wouldn't have to worry about misdeeds. And men are not angels. Jefferson impregnated his teenage slave, who was also the half sister of his late wife. Let's face it, saints are not going to run for office.

Geeze. Guess, if one's expectations are low there won't be disappointment!

I'll pass on mud wrestling, lying scumbags and adulterous cheats, knowing I will suffer the fallout with my lack of popularity.

That's the nature of politics. Right now it's about being the best politician, not the best leader. If not Hillary or Trump then who? Who out there would make a good president? And if you find him, would he run? I don't like what I face but I have to vote for who will do the least amount of damage.

And if you pass on those things I can assume you never voted before? Unless you are old enough to have voted for Carter. Carter is actually a good example of how a good person will get screwed when it comes to politics.