As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to leadership, gender plays no part. What's so hard to understand with that?

I always wonder about people who accuse 'Groups' (Blacks, Jews, Whites, Women, Men, Gays, et al) of (Fill-in the negatives).

Just wish they would stop projecting their own problems on everyone else.

Right, because there's no such thing as sexism or racism or ..., thus nobody can be on the receiving end of discrimination, and anybody who says otherwise is guilty of projection.

Life must be nice in the CLYDE universe.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Do wish you would present some believable evidence not some over-hyped piece in the sensationalist comic called the Daily Mail.

Try again, please.

Dude, get off my back. If you don't like what I post, put me on ignore. I found that link with Google, and besides, it's from your own neck of the woods. If you're saying that that site or any site in your country is getting "it" wrong, than I have to wonder about all the links posted from non-U.S. citizens here from non-U.S. sites.

I will let that post stand. You don't like it, don't read it.

Peace! :)

[edit]
Ok, just to be fair about it, here's one from my country.
[/edit]

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

-[ snip ]-

Then please tell me why it is that Clinton told her daughter, in an email, that she (Hillary) knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but turned around and said the attack was because of some video on YouTube?

There was too much irrelevant crap in the proposal from the Democrats which is why the Republicans denied it.

Peace! :)

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video? The reason I ask is that was a similar conflation following 9/11, Bush/Cheney linked Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda This conflation was repeated by other Republicans in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Pretty sure current evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein was no friend or ally of OBL.

Did any of this make Bush untrustworthy enough for Republicans to withhold their votes in 2004, despite the 9/11 commission telling them that there was no collaborative relationship?

How many US and allied troops died and were injured as a result?

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war, there was no such fog when Bush and Cheney re-iterated the link between Saddam and OBL in 2004.

Perhaps Esme is right and their maybe some double standards at play.

I have no idea what prompted your response which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. What war over a video? I said nothing about a war over a video.

This is what I was referring to.

Where in my post did I suggest a war was started over a youtube video? For all the bluster Republicans have made over the issue, no war was started on the basis of statements regarding the youtube video.

What prompted my reply was the possibility of a double standard regarding the trustworthiness of male and female presidential candidates. Bush (male) deemed trustworthy by Republicans despite lying about Hussein's links with OBL, Clinton (female) deemed untrustworthy for relaying information (or lying if you don't want to give the administration the benefit of doubt) regarding the origins of an attack in its immediate aftermath.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to leadership, gender plays no part. What's so hard to understand with that?

I always wonder about people who accuse 'Groups' (Blacks, Jews, Whites, Women, Men, Gays, et al) of (Fill-in the negatives).

Just wish they would stop projecting their own problems on everyone else.

Right, because there's no such thing as sexism or racism or ..., thus nobody can be on the receiving end of discrimination, and anybody who says otherwise is guilty of projection.

Life must be nice in the CLYDE universe.

& yours it seems! For those with any semblance of common sense between their ears knows that sexism, racism & discrimination occurs.

So we are now at the stage where even a question becomes sexist if that question involves a female?

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war

Good con job to cover up the fact she released classified information to her daughter. Classified information she could not release to the public and did not release to the public. Information that may have been gathered in such a way that to release it at that time would identify an operative.

Oh wait, double standard, she had a private e-mail server and was giving out classified information to any and all!

Now that we know the republicans are the one who killed the people in Bengazzi over some stupid political funding stunt, what does that say about those old geezer white males and how they value life? Or was it a calculation in an attempt to embarrass a black president and woman secretary of state?

---

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to leadership, gender plays no part. What's so hard to understand with that?

I always wonder about people who accuse 'Groups' (Blacks, Jews, Whites, Women, Men, Gays, et al) of (Fill-in the negatives).

Just wish they would stop projecting their own problems on everyone else.

Right, because there's no such thing as sexism or racism or ..., thus nobody can be on the receiving end of discrimination, and anybody who says otherwise is guilty of projection.

Life must be nice in the CLYDE universe.

& yours it seems! For those with any semblance of common sense between their ears knows that sexism, racism & discrimination occurs.

So we are now at the stage where even a question becomes sexist if that question involves a female?

That's not what I said. CLYDE has issues with people who accuse groups of (fill in the negatives), for example "Democrats (group) are stupid (negative)", as such people are projecting their own problems (in the example stupidity) onto others. I was trying to show that it's not always projection.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Now that we know the republicans are the one who killed the people in Bengazzi over some stupid political funding stunt, what does that say about those old geezer white males and how they value life? Or was it a calculation in an attempt to embarrass a black president and woman secretary of state?

+1

---

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war

Good con job to cover up the fact she released classified information to her daughter. Classified information she could not release to the public and did not release to the public. Information that may have been gathered in such a way that to release it at that time would identify an operative.

Oh wait, double standard, she had a private e-mail server and was giving out classified information to any and all!

Now that we know the republicans are the one who killed the people in Bengazzi over some stupid political funding stunt, what does that say about those old geezer white males and how they value life? Or was it a calculation in an attempt to embarrass a black president and woman secretary of state?

So the issue with Clinton's email to her daughter is not necessarily the detail of what was communicated, but that it was communicated at all? Certainly Hillary would have had an easier time in front of the Congressional Committee if she hadn't sent the email ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Again that comes down to common sense. I think most of us are aware of that fact & have come to ignore it to a degree.

2 points here.

1: With the threads on America it has been noted that the participation of non-Americans is not welcome. Well when the International as well as American media state this: -

The position of President of the United States of America is seen as "Leader of the free world", then that entitles non Americans to participate.

2: Leadership. The qualities of leadership is not the be all or end of leadership. The capacity to lead counts as well. To the man/woman in the street, good leadership counts for much. For too many years, the leaders of the "free world" have got too complacent & out of touch with the common people. That can be seen in the back stabbing & in-fighting which has been seen in Europe a la Brexit & current in America.

Surely the "free world" can do much better than what has been seen this year so far?

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to leadership, gender plays no part. What's so hard to understand with that?

I always wonder about people who accuse 'Groups' (Blacks, Jews, Whites, Women, Men, Gays, et al) of (Fill-in the negatives).

Just wish they would stop projecting their own problems on everyone else.

Right, because there's no such thing as sexism or racism or ..., thus nobody can be on the receiving end of discrimination, and anybody who says otherwise is guilty of projection.

Life must be nice in the CLYDE universe.

& yours it seems! For those with any semblance of common sense between their ears knows that sexism, racism & discrimination occurs.

So we are now at the stage where even a question becomes sexist if that question involves a female?

We are at the stage that when it does involve a female it is sensible to examine ones on internal prejudices (that exist in everyone raised in a patriarchal society) and make sure that your gut reactions and willingness to believe certain things about her are not based upon those unacknowledged internal prejudices.

If someone treats me poorly (in work, life, the street..anywhere really) I always have that extra possibility that they are being a d*ck to me just because I am female. Sometimes its not, they are just being a d*ck. However, there is always that possibility. I suspect you don't have to deal with that extra layer of complexity in your everyday life. It is there though, and it is certainly there when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I reiterate:

My "issues" with Hilary reside in my fears that she might end up a "hawkish" president and that she might be a president who is more of a fiscal conservative than I would want her to be.

^
|
|
|

This.

Jill Stein, on the other hand, appears to be non-hawkish and not a pro-corporatist neo-liberal. None of that has anything to do with gender. On the other hand, Jill is, to my knowledge, still not on the ballot in all 50 states. Furthermore, info is coming out about her views on vaccination and "wi-fi radiation" that could be non-evidence based and detrimental to gaining support. None of this has anything to do with gender.

Thank you for the link in your other post about her hawkishness. That is a legitimate concern I think for those that are tired of being dragged into foreign wars (and those of us that live in countries that get dragged in after the US into those foreign wars).

I have voted green in the past when I was unhappy with the party that I had previously supported. However, that was when my seat was a safe seat and I knew that my vote wouldn't risk putting the greater evil into power.

Here is Noam Chomsky's thoughts on voting for the lesser evil rather than a 3rd party candidate:

Noam Chomsky's 8-Point Rationale for Voting for the Lesser Evil Presidential Candidate

Worth a read if you think taking the higher ground is a good idea. His point "Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression" is a strong reminder that you are responsible for picking someone who is going to lead your country. You don't seem to think Jill Stein going to get that chance, so a vote for her would really just be handing the presidency to Trump.

Point 6 states "...should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration."

So you have the luxury to throw muslims, blacks, women, homesexuals, hispanics and so on under the bus to salve your conscience? Because in this regard there is a clear difference between the candidates that are likely to win.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If someone treats me poorly (in work, life, the street..anywhere really) I always have that extra possibility that they are being a d*ck to me just because I am female. Sometimes its not, they are just being a d*ck. However, there is always that possibility. I suspect you don't have to deal with that extra layer of complexity in your everyday life. It is there though, and it is certainly there when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

Another of your misconceptions.

So Hilary had a tough life, so what? Is she the only person to have done so?

Are you aware of the security threats each nation faces?

Just because Clinton was a female Secretary of State did not give her the right to ignore security issues, or do you think that a woman has no need to worry about such matters?

How is it that every time a serious issue crops up, the feminists pop up with all their B/S?

Yes we all know that sexism, racism & discrimination is rife, but to the man/woman in the street, they don't give a shyte whether or not the President/Secretary of State/Secretary of Defence is male or female, all they are concerned with is that they are capable of doing the job to maintain the security & safety of their nation.

BTW & I know you won't like it as you disliked her, but I voted for Maggie. I voted not because she was a woman but a strong leader for that time. Labour - Phhht! The Liberals - Jeremy Thorpe put them on the backburner.

The position of President of the United States of America is seen as "Leader of the free world", then that entitles non Americans to participate.

The president is the leader of the United States. The rest of the world is not the United States, and therefore isn't free if the office is the leader of the free world as the office only leads the USA. So someone else leads the free world or the USA is the entire free world.

I know some of you will be shocked to realize our State Department has sold you a bill of goods thinking we lead the world. We only lead if you choose to follow. Brexit is not following. Not signing the TPP is not following. Now get back in line and do as you are told by the hegemonous bastards. :)

---

Certainly Hillary would have had an easier time in front of the Congressional Committee if she hadn't sent the email .

Or just stopped being Hillary Clinton.

Note: Is the above a positive, or a negative?

:) :) :)

About Clinton or the committee? Do we know that other Cabinet members in the current administration and/or previous ones have never had communications with family members that contained classified information? Were these cabinet members subject to the same kind of treatment?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Do wish you would present some believable evidence not some over-hyped piece in the sensationalist comic called the Daily Mail.

Try again, please.

Dude, get off my back. If you don't like what I post, put me on ignore. I found that link with Google, and besides, it's from your own neck of the woods. If you're saying that that site or any site in your country is getting "it" wrong, than I have to wonder about all the links posted from non-U.S. citizens here from non-U.S. sites.

I will let that post stand. You don't like it, don't read it.

Peace! :)

[edit]
Ok, just to be fair about it, here's one from my country.
[/edit]

Stunning logic.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

-[ snip ]-

Then please tell me why it is that Clinton told her daughter, in an email, that she (Hillary) knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but turned around and said the attack was because of some video on YouTube?

There was too much irrelevant crap in the proposal from the Democrats which is why the Republicans denied it.

Peace! :)

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video? The reason I ask is that was a similar conflation following 9/11, Bush/Cheney linked Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda This conflation was repeated by other Republicans in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Pretty sure current evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein was no friend or ally of OBL.

Did any of this make Bush untrustworthy enough for Republicans to withhold their votes in 2004, despite the 9/11 commission telling them that there was no collaborative relationship?

How many US and allied troops died and were injured as a result?

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war, there was no such fog when Bush and Cheney re-iterated the link between Saddam and OBL in 2004.

Perhaps Esme is right and their maybe some double standards at play.

I have no idea what prompted your response which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. What war over a video? I said nothing about a war over a video.

This is what I was referring to.

Where in my post did I suggest a war was started over a youtube video? For all the bluster Republicans have made over the issue, no war was started on the basis of statements regarding the youtube video.

Could it be the opening line of your response?

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

-[ snip ]-

Then please tell me why it is that Clinton told her daughter, in an email, that she (Hillary) knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but turned around and said the attack was because of some video on YouTube?

There was too much irrelevant crap in the proposal from the Democrats which is why the Republicans denied it.

Peace! :)

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video? The reason I ask is that was a similar conflation following 9/11, Bush/Cheney linked Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda This conflation was repeated by other Republicans in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Pretty sure current evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein was no friend or ally of OBL.

Did any of this make Bush untrustworthy enough for Republicans to withhold their votes in 2004, despite the 9/11 commission telling them that there was no collaborative relationship?

How many US and allied troops died and were injured as a result?

If we allow benefit of doubt, then we could give some to Clinton's argument that her mail to Chelsea was written in the fog of war, there was no such fog when Bush and Cheney re-iterated the link between Saddam and OBL in 2004.

Perhaps Esme is right and their maybe some double standards at play.

I have no idea what prompted your response which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. What war over a video? I said nothing about a war over a video.

This is what I was referring to.

Where in my post did I suggest a war was started over a youtube video? For all the bluster Republicans have made over the issue, no war was started on the basis of statements regarding the youtube video.

Could it be the opening line of your response?

Who exactly did we go to war with over the youtube video?

I guess some missed the second sentence which started "The reason I ask is ..." and then contrasted events after the youtube video "lie", with events after a Iraqi links with Al Qaeda lie (one lead to war, the other didn't).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Hackers for Hillary

Best comment so far of 2016 :-)

"Mr Haley did offer another idea - why not vote using only a piece of paper and a pencil?"

Two Benghazi Parents Sue Hillary Clinton for Wrongful Death, Defamation

The parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court Monday against Hillary Clinton.

In the suit, Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, claim that Clinton's use of a private e-mail server contributed to the attacks. They also accuse her of defaming them in public statements.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861

No fan of Hillary.

---

So the Don is actually asking 2nd Amendment Nut Jobs to take care of Hillary?

Why doesn't the Secret Service just take care of the "Nut Job Trump"?