Your “Hillary Clinton Is Too Unethical To Be President” Update

Hillaryshrug

Because of foreign policy catastrophes, Republican idiocy, natural disasters and more, many of Hillary Clinton’s short attention span supporters have returned to the fold. even though, polls say, 65% of Americans don’t trust her. The astounding stat is that 35% do trust her, which raises the question of what politician could do or say to make such walking, talking Nigerian Prince targets not trust them. They know Hillary lies; they know she is dishonest; they know she is greedy for wealth and power, as well as constantly conflicted and a hypocrite,but never mind, it’s ideas that matter with Hillary. She can, her cheering section insists, be the best choice for President even if you can’t trust her.

OK, if honesty, candor, and independence don’t matter, how about the integrity of those all-important “ideas”? One of those ideas was the Trans Pacific Partnership. The Washington Free Beacon gathered 24 Times Hillary Clinton Championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership While Secretary of State. This week, however, Clinton announced that she now opposes the  Trans-Pacific Trade agreement that she had previously taken bows for negotiating in  2012, and virtually nobody thinks she is doing this for any reason other than the fact that Bernie Sanders, like Jack Frost, is nipping at her nose, and she wants to keep her leftest supporters from flocking to him. Tell me, you “Ideas mean more than character” rationalizers, what good are those great ideas when a cynical, values-free manipulator will abandon them like kittens or change them like socks to win votes? This is Clinton’s integrity deficit, and hardly on display for the first time. Her “ideas” aren’t devised because they are “good” or even really her ideas; they exist because they help her gain power at the moment. You don’t like an idea? Well, be patient.

Or if lack of integrity isn’t a deal breaker, how about arrogance or stupidity? In her 2014 memoir, Hillary Clinton listed the negotiation of TPP as one of her key accomplishments as Secretary of State,  and she just sent it  to GOP presidential candidates, even though it is  smoking gun evidence not only to her lack of integrity, but to the complete contempt she has for everyone intelligence, or, in the alternative her carelessness and habit of metaphorically shooting herself in the foot. Why would any politician choose to increase the circulation of self-authored evidence of trustworthiness? There are only a few possibilities:

1. She didn’t know she was going to flip when she decided to send out copies of the book.

2. She is confident that if blatant dishonesty hasn’t alienated Democrats yet, they won’t…ever.

3. She hasn’t read her own autobiography, or thinks no one else has,

4. She’s an idiot.

I know that conventional wisdom holds that the latter isn’t true, and perhaps it should be reframed as “She is prone to acting idiotically,” as in the private e-mail mess. Whichever explanation you choose, it is fair to say that sending out a book that highlights her untrustworthiness “wasn’t the best choice.”

I will keep pointing out until it is no longer true: the fact that this woman is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination is an embarrassment to her party, her supporters, and the nation.

______________________

Pointer: Instapundit

29 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Character, Ethics Dunces, Government & Politics, Leadership, U.S. Society

29 responses to “Your “Hillary Clinton Is Too Unethical To Be President” Update

  1. Elizabeth I

    It is pathological arrogance, period. She truly believes she is the best and the brightest, and, ipso facto, can get away with anything. For those ideologues and knee-jerk supporters, it’s simply idiocy. The worst thing is that the Democratic Party can’t (or won’t) present an able, decent, honest candidate — who could win — to offset the slime she brings to this unbelievable Presidential race.

  2. Humble Talent

    I think at this point, everyone and their dog understands that Hillary Clinton is a dud, but there are people who think (perhaps even with some legitimacy) that the system isn’t served by admitting the Democratic bench is so shallow that it’s un-electable, and make the Republican primaries the presidential run in all but name. So they’ll champion what they think is the best hope of beating a republican, up to and including a mildly retarded chimpanzee actively scratching its junk for the camera, because they would rather scour their genitals off with a rusty SOS pad before supporting any GOP candidate.

    It just seems like for the last four or election cycles your choices in America have been just awful. Romney perhaps being the outlier… I think he might have done well. Regardless. My two cents.

    • As we know from such historical episodes as Harry Truman’s presidency, Chester Arthur’s and even Abe Lincoln, anyone can shine as President despite little evidence of a likelihood to do so, and as we know from others like Madison, Buchanan, the elder Bush, Taft, Wilson and Hoover,a resume does not a President make. It’s always a crap shoot. But its ridiculous to ignore the evidence we have.

      • Humble Talent

        I don’t disagree. But name a democrat that you think hasn’t disqualified itself for the presidency. We need at least two parties in a democratic system, we need the checks and balances… But it’s like one party just isn’t showing up, and this is the best they think they can do. It’s sad.

        • Oh, the four semi-candidates running against her haven’t disqualified themselves. Bernie’s policies are ridiculous, but that’s socialism. Chaffee is absurd, but hey, if a voter thinks the Metric System is the nation’s biggest challenge, then go for it. My classmate Jim Webb is unelectable, but not unqualified, and integrity he’s got.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            Your thoughts on O’Malley? (the fourth who wasn’t mentioned). And did you mean “unelectable,” as in hasn’t got a chance, or “undetectable” as in no one knows he’s there, in Webb’s case?

            • That was supposed to be unelectable for Jim. He’s too forthright, too stiff, to uncuddly, too independent. He’d be a great President, though. Gilmore is attractive and charismatic, and as down the middle of the alley liberals come, he’s as respectable as any.

              • The Bill

                I agree with you about Sen. Webb. Hes the only one on either side I think is qualified to be President. But when I mention his name to people they dismiss him because they want Hilary or Sanders.

                • Webb’s not a partisan, or even a politician. He’s just a statesman…in fact, Marine defines him as well as anything.

                  • Steve-O-in-NJ

                    How about pugilist? I haven’t forgotten his little exchange with GWB and his comment about he would have like to slug him (oh, how I wish he had tried). He apparently later arranged a chat between himself, GWB, and his son at the White House to smooth things over. Had I been the President I would have told him to shove it up his ass, he would not be welcome at the White House while I was in charge.

                  • The Bill

                    And a damn fine one at that and that may be his downfall. He doesn’t sugar coat things and he speaks his mind. Too many on both sides say what ever they think will get them elected.

  3. Being able to blatantly lie and get away with it is an effective way of showing and even enhancing power. The 2012 Election is one example. We will see if it works here.

  4. dragin_dragon

    The problem is, the Republicans are not real better. Right now, the front-runner is still Trump. It still looks like Trump vs. Clinton, but it’s still early going, yet. If Biden enters the race, all bets are off, but still…President Biden? Almost as frightening as President Trump.

    • Nobody is worse in terms of character than Hillary, and “the Republicans are not much better” is a non-sequitur: that doesn’t make Hillary better or worse.

      • dragin_dragon

        Oh, I agree. Just making the point that whoever wins this time out, we’re probably screwed. But, no question Hillary is the worst of a bad lot.

  5. Chase Martinez

    I had always had a bad feeling about her. Even in 2008 when I was new to understanding civics and the political world, and knew nothing about Hillary Clinton, I knew she was slimy, manipulative, and power-hungry. I don’t understand, and cannot understand, how so many people have blinded themselves to the fact that she has no ideals and only wants power for its own sake.

    I also think you’ve missed an ethical value here that she’s shown she doesn’t understand: loyalty. While loyalty can be overrated, I think here we see an unethical breach of such, as her newfound opposition to TPP, Obamacare, and other policies soon to come, is a betrayal of Obama, of her own department, of (in the case of TPP) the trade partners she negotiated with in bad faith, and of every unnamed worker bee in the White House and Foggy Bottom who tried their damnedest to make the world a better place when leaders like Clinton stood in the way. I think in any field other than politics, her actions would have her blacklisted; no employer (including the public) should have to worry about betrayal from employees (at least, unwarranted betrayal), and nobody working in the executive branch should have to fear that their boss will hang them out to dry the moment the political winds change.

  6. Neil A. Dorr

    Jack,
    I’m NOT defending her. However, in a recent interview (while flip-flopping by refusing to commit) she claimed that “key changes” had been made of which she hadn’t yet had a chance to review (presumably now she has) and thus wouldn’t fully support the agreement until she’d had a chance to review again.

    I agree with your take, but doesn’t that give her the obvious out of saying “Well, the Deal I championed was the stuff that dreams are made of, but then Republicans got ahold of it, modified the hell out of it, and now it’s just a nightmare. Luckily, Hill-dog is hear to save the day by championing the RIGHT version!”?

    Wait, what am I saying? OF COURSE that will be her out. I guess, then, my real questions are: 1)ARE there two versions? 2) How different are the two versions? 3)Are the the elements she’s now opposed to, things to which she’d previously given support?

    Best to you!

    Sincerely,
    Neil

    • Isaac

      That was Bill’s escape tactic for not supporting a ban on partial-birth abortions. “There were some details in the bill that I didn’t agree with.” Thus, some imaginary hypothetical version of such a bill could, in theory, have been supported by him.

  7. This is one of the most depressing threads I’ve ever read.

  8. Rick M.

    Hillary Clinton is the most transparent candidate in the current batch vying for POTUS. Every flip…every flop….every change in direction is clearly orchestrated by poll driven numbers and not any political philosophy. The calculating approach is about as real and genuine as a low end bedroom set from Bob’s Furniture.

    The most notable recent change – this one being a trade issue – is her own political bait and switch designed to appeal to those who have Bernie tattoo’s on their butts. Sincerity is not exactly in the Clinton playbook, but resurrection of the “devil (any Republican)” certainly is. Once again that well is not running dry and Clinton will preach to the choir on the “Great Satan” or GOP as it is commonly known.

    Clinton is so reminiscent of Richard Nixon and has the same mile wide and inch deep approach, so transparent she is. So transparent I can see through her like she was a target on “Ghost Hunters.”

  9. Where in blazes is Bill Richardson?

  10. Other Bill

    There are so many women of a certain age and orientation (combined with their male husbands, supporters or sympathizers [Lanny Davis]) who consider Hillary “one of us” that she will always be a viable candidate. Whether that group is large enough to allow her to win a general election is the question. I hope it’s not. I’m not sure anyone under forty much cares for her or her alleged husband and I’m not sure the black vote will be at the polls to deliver her a victory as they did President Obama in 2012.

    But keep hammering away at her, Jack. Can’t hurt.

    • Chase Martinez

      I don’t want to speak for other people my age, but most of the liberal folks my age will probably be supporting Bernie Sanders. My generation seems more liberal on average (even conservative or moderate folks such as myself are sick of the culture wars, for instance) than older voters, and value ‘authenticity’. Despite the devaluing of ‘authenticity’ by its use as a corporate buzzword, the fact is that Clinton doesn’t fit any definition of the word, even the watered-down one.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        A lot of them are – and they look like idiots doing it, which just leaves older guys like me shaking our heads and remarking on what dunces they are.

  11. I’d say that the fact that the Democrat Party apparently ISN’T embarrassed by her is significant in itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s