I like campaigns. The lies, the sophistry, the rhetoric are amazing. The way people suddenly become interested but get even stupider in their support.
I once saw a family in therapy that I genuinely liked. The son had Tourette’s syndrome which the parents denied. He did some fairly bizarre acts.
I had to write a diagnosis for the court system and I gave the diagnosis of conduct disorder-aggressive type. The parents were infuriated and wanted to know how I came up with aggressive type. I cited the attack on his sister’s bedroom wall with a hammer and the time he put a knife through his sister’s door. They said that those incidents were normal teenage behaviors. I remember the look of horror on their faces when I said these were not normal for teenagers and besides he was only twelve.
It reminded me of a person telling me what a great President, Bill Clinton was. I reminded her that he had been impeached and those two impeachments did not even come close to the other charges that he escaped. We don’t converse much these days. Speaking the truth is a liability these days. But that is the beauty of the campaign.
This does deal with a campaign. Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric. I listened to her pressured speech over a period of time as she first denied sending classified emails, then changing to I did not send any emails marked classified then I sent an email that was retroactively changed to classified. Why doesn’t she offer to take a polygraph test and end the debate? I know why and I also know what she’ll say.
I watched a HUFFINGTON POST news report on AOL. If you listen to an AOL news article and let the feed continue, other feeds report the same topic. It turns out to be like those games where you read a person a story and they turn and tell the next person and when it gets to the end of the line the story is unrecognizable from the original. I don’t know why AOL allows the feeds to continue because the story they tell does not match the collection of stories that follow. For example the HP spoke of one email that was retroactively classified. Forget the reality that all emails are classified from the State Department or that you are supposed to use a government protected email server, the remaining newscasts report that there were two “TOP SECRET” classified emails out of a sample of 10%, not including the ones that were erased (another issue). So either the HP is ahead of the other news organizations or they are either poor at collecting the facts or simply biased in their reporting of information against a candidate they openly support.
After the murder of the British spy who hacked her husband’s email, I would think that might make her emails safe. However the murder was deemed “the perfect crime” so Bill was absolved.
What Hillary is not saying is where the problem lies. All State Department employees have to go through training about secure emails. Either she didn’t go to the training or she actively chose a different route. In that meeting you are told there are three types of classified documents and that you are to assume that all documents are “classified” originating from the State Department. I get that. I understand what classified is.
I really suppose that depends on what your definition of “is” is?