Is Hillary Incompetent, A Liar, Or Both?

[TheHammer]

Hillary says she e-mailed nothing and received nothing on her private server that was marked classified. Of course that may very well be true. However her statement only proves that Hillary Clinton is either a total incompetent, or a total liar or both.


Anyone appointed by any President to one of the highest offices in the federal government like Secretary Of State, it’s taken for granted understands which communications are/will be classified without, or before somebody in government rubber stamps said communications with some degree of limiting classification.


So, which is it? Is Hillary Clinton a total incompetent for not having the intellect to recognize sensitive communications?


Or is Hillary Clinton a total liar who recognized many of her communications on a private insecure e-mail server were highly sensitive conversations that were/should be/will be classified?


Or, is Hillary Clinton both a total liar and a total incompetent who didn’t care if her communications on her private insecure e-mail server were highly sensitive conversations and she thought if anybody ever challenged her about it she could simply lie her way out of it by claiming she “didn’t know’ the conversations were likely sensitive conversations that were/could be/would be classified?


Remember hubby Slick’s excuse? “It all depends on what the definition of is, is.” (Bill Clinton)


Liars of a feather, flock together.

 

[ocean515]

Hillary says she e-mailed nothing and received nothing on her private server that was marked classified. Of course that may very well be true. However her statement only proves that Hillary Clinton is either a total incompetent, or a total liar or both.


Anyone appointed by any President to one of the highest offices in the federal government like Secretary Of State, it’s taken for granted understands which communications are/will be classified without, or before somebody in government rubber stamps said communications with some degree of limiting classification.


So, which is it? Is Hillary Clinton a total incompetent for not having the intellect to recognize sensitive communications?


Or is Hillary Clinton a total liar who recognized many of her communications on a private insecure e-mail server were highly sensitive conversations that were/should be/will be classified?


Or, is Hillary Clinton both a total liar and a total incompetent who didn’t care if her communications on her private insecure e-mail server were highly sensitive conversations and she thought if anybody ever challenged her about it she could simply lie her way out of it by claiming she “didn’t know’ the conversations were likely sensitive conversations that were/could be/would be classified?


Remember hubby Slick’s excuse? “It all depends on what the definition of is, is.” (Bill Clinton)


Liars of a feather, flock together.

Well, it's pretty clear the correct answer is BOTH.

Hilary is one of those force of nature people who's narcissism precludes them the necessary humility to avoid issues like her email debacle. Certainly old school and unable to fully comprehend technology at anything approaching a competent level, Hilary can only surround herself with sycophants who are desperately trying to spin reality into a spider web of denial and obfuscation.

Like most who have depended on similar shielding, it will likely be her undoing. The electorate is in a much less forgiving mood this cycle, and the old pony tricks aren't working very well. Her only saving grace is the fact Sanders is the only alternative choice at this point in time. Truly a hold your nose vote.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well, I'd say she's a competent liar and a lying incompetent, so I see the dilemma in your question.

 

[woodsman]

I would agree with Ocean the clear answer is both, but I would take it a step further, she is a criminal. For me, she embodies everything I detest about politics and politicians.

We could even ratchet it up a bit, her use of a personal email server was not just for convenience it was a way to cover tracks. I firmly believe that if they are able to forensically recover all the deleted data it will show a purposeful sweeping of “for our eyes only” political actions that may open a few eyes.

Just days ago the white house spokesman Josh Earnest stated that Hillary Clinton is (not) the target of any investigation. Curious, James Comey the head of the FBI states that the investigation is a priority, It’s reported he has 100+ agents working it. I guess the Obama administration is taking a page out of the Clinton playbook, what is the meaning of target?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Hillary says she e-mailed nothing and received nothing on her private server that was marked classified. Of course that may very well be true. However her statement only proves that Hillary Clinton is either a total incompetent, or a total liar or both.


Anyone appointed by any President to one of the highest offices in the federal government like Secretary Of State, it’s taken for granted understands which communications are/will be classified without, or before somebody in government rubber stamps said communications with some degree of limiting classification.


So, which is it? Is Hillary Clinton a total incompetent for not having the intellect to recognize sensitive communications?


Or is Hillary Clinton a total liar who recognized many of her communications on a private insecure e-mail server were highly sensitive conversations that were/should be/will be classified?


Or, is Hillary Clinton both a total liar and a total incompetent who didn’t care if her communications on her private insecure e-mail server were highly sensitive conversations and she thought if anybody ever challenged her about it she could simply lie her way out of it by claiming she “didn’t know’ the conversations were likely sensitive conversations that were/could be/would be classified?


Remember hubby Slick’s excuse? “It all depends on what the definition of is, is.” (Bill Clinton)


Liars of a feather, flock together.

I would say she may be both...and may be neither.

I do KNOW she is the person who owns conservative America...lock, stock, and sandbox.

Frankly, I think that may be more important than the questions you asked, Hammer.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I would say she may be both...and may be neither.

I do KNOW she is the person who owns conservative America...lock, stock, and sandbox.

Frankly, I think that may be more important than the questions you asked, Hammer.

Actually she owns the democrats. every one else can see through her lies. Her smoke and mirrors only work on the party blind.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Actually she owns the democrats. every one else can see through her lies. Her smoke and mirrors only work on the party blind.

She MAY own the Democrats.

She DEFINITELY OWNS THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES. They dance to her tune. She leads them around by their noses.

And it seems to me that is more important than whether or not she is incompetent or a liar.

We need the two party system.

 

[Lovebug]

All the above. I get suspicious of people who are as pretentious as Hillary. But wait, most candidates are like that, are they not? Few exceptions, and for the most part, they are showed into the back row.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone come about who admits needing to learn, to adjust, to surround him/herself with competent advisors, and who is willing to admit having made mistakes?
Hillary is sees herself as the most experienced, through marriage mostly, a marriage that was and is more of a farce kept up to further her presidential endeavors. She stumbled through her time as SoS, seems to have fumbled repeatedly. She will walk on and over the dead to get back into the WH, just to shove it to Bubba. She doesn't have a sincere and honest and compassionate bone in her body. But she is a Democrat and she is a woman. Hey, she deserves to be POTUS. Lets vote.
If Bernie doesn't make more waves soon, she will get the nomination.
Now I am hoping to be wrong about Trump. I see him as a glory hound who will suck people to his side until he is the only one standing. He won't win the general election because he is too divisive. But he will gladly take the fall and Hillary will be coronated.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

She MAY own the Democrats.

She owns them just ask them.

She DEFINITELY OWNS THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES. They dance to her tune. She leads them around by their noses.

In the dreams of the democrats only. They will soon have their puppet to blindly follow as well.

And it seems to me that is more important than whether or not she is incompetent or a liar.

You got 2 things right. She is incompetent and a liar.That is what is important or sad depending on whether you are the puppet master or the sheep blindly following.

We need the two party system.

Only if we wish to keep this country divided. Who benefits by keeping us divided? The rich and powerful who can only control us and this country by keeping us divided.

I on the other hand would like to see the people of this country unite and take back our government. Through unity can we truly start to accomplish great things. Even the mightiest ship can be moved in the right direction if everyone pulls in the same direction. Divided we cancel each other out allowing the ship to drift into harm.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Both, anyone who does not know this has been hiding under a rock or is not too bright.

 

[Frank Apisa]

She owns them just ask them.

Some say "yes" some say "no." So I will stick with my "they MAY own her."

In the dreams of the democrats only. They will soon have their puppet to blindly follow as well.

I am not a Democrat...and I am not dreaming.

She owns them. Plays them like a cello.

You got 2 things right. She is incompetent and a liar.That is what is important or sad depending on whether you are the puppet master or the sheep blindly following.

Nah...c'mon. My personal take is that she is not incompetent. I think she is very competent. As for "liar"...well, she is a politician...and...well...you know.

Only if we wish to keep this country divided. Who benefits by keeping us divided? The rich and powerful who can only control us and this country by keeping us divided.

Our country is divided...seriously divided. We need (at least) two parties. If you think not...you are not actually thinking.

I on the other hand would like to see the people of this country unite and take back our government.

We are the government. We don't have to take it back.

Through unity can we truly start to accomplish great things.

Really! Like American conservatives and American liberals are going to "unite!"

We can accomplish things if the people who want to obstruct...stop obstructing. Whether they will be "great" things or not is still up for grabs.

Even the mightiest ship can be moved in the right direction if everyone pulls in the same direction.

You are right. So what say you get on board on the question of electing Hillary Clinton to be our next president...and we can move right along.

Divided we cancel each other out allowing the ship to drift into harm.

I agree...so what say you hop on board the Hillary Clinton express?

 

[woodsman]

Both, anyone who does not know this has been hiding under a rock or is not too bright.

I understand the hyper partisanship, they are void of reason and void of rational thought. The folks I take issue with are the fence sitters, you know the ones, those that excuse and muddy the water then jump the fence when the water is just to cloudy.

Personally, I hold more distain for these folks than the hyper partisan crew.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Both, anyone who does not know this has been hiding under a rock or is not too bright.

Or perhaps just not a partisan hack.

I think Hillary Clinton is going to make a fine president. Looking forward to it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Or perhaps just not a partisan hack.

I think Hillary Clinton is going to make a fine president. Looking forward to it.

Partisan hacks dont live in a delusional state by definition of "partisan hack", most I think say "ya she is a liar and not too good, but she is my guy". You dont pretend that your friends are all noble sunshine do you? But you tend to stand by them just the same, right? Same thing.

Now whether these same people are going to tell us the truth is a whole nother kettle of fish.....

 

[Frank Apisa]

Partisan hacks dont live in a delusional state by definition of "partisan hack", most I think say "ya she is a liar and not too good, but she is my guy". You dont pretend that your friends are all noble sunshine do you? But you tend to stand by them just the same, right? Same thing.

Now whether these same people are going to tell us the truth is a whole nother kettle of fish.....

You said anyone who does not know that Hillary Clinton is both incompetent and a liar...has been hiding under a rock or is not too bright.

I have NOT been hiding under a rock...and I am reasonably bright...but I do not know that Hillary Clinton is incompetent...not at all. I suspect neither do you...but you, and many like you, are suggesting she is incompetent because of what I see as political hackery.

Apparently you disagree.

Okay...that happens.

 

[woodsman]

"Nah...c'mon. My personal take is that she is not incompetent. I think she is very competent. As for "liar"...well, she is a politician...and...well...you know."


".but I do not know that Hillary Clinton is incompetent..."


Both ways, interesting....

 

[Frank Apisa]

"Nah...c'mon. My personal take is that she is not incompetent. I think she is very competent. As for "liar"...well, she is a politician...and...well...you know."


".but I do not know that Hillary Clinton is incompetent..."


Both ways, interesting....

Do you see some sort of "both ways" there????

Read, Woodsman!

 

[woodsman]

Incompetent | Definition of Incompetent by Merriam-Webster

Competent | Define Competent at Dictionary.com

You used both to describe the same person. It may have been a typo but....?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Incompetent | Definition of Incompetent by Merriam-Webster

Competent | Define Competent at Dictionary.com

You used both to describe the same person.

I most assuredly did not.

My personal take is that she is not incompetent. (That means that I think she is NOT incompetent.)

I think she is very competent. (That also means I think she is NOT incompetent...but goes further and says I think she is competent.)

but I do not know that Hillary Clinton is incompetent (That means I do NOT know that she is incompetent...which is what I said originally.)

So...what is the problem here other than reading comprehension on your part?

 

[Hawkeye10]

I most assuredly did not.

My personal take is that she is not incompetent. (That means that I think she is NOT incompetent.)

I think she is very competent. (That also means I think she is NOT incompetent...but goes further and says I think she is competent.)

but I do not know that Hillary Clinton is incompetent (That means I do NOT know that she is incompetent...which is what I said originally.)

So...what is the problem here other than reading comprehension on your part?

What then accounts for how little she has produced in life?

 

[woodsman]

What then accounts for how little she has produced in life?

Vote for the empty pant-suit regardless of criminal and treasonous activities, yup, that’s how fake independents role NOT.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Vote for the empty pant-suit regardless of criminal and treasonous activities, yup, that’s how fake independents role NOT.

I expect the answer is that she is a woman so she never had a chance to get any work done because of all the men and Republicans who are constantly victimizing her,and if that does not work the story will be that it was lately Obama's fault (and that one she might be able to sell me on).

I will get back to you after I confirm.

 

[woodsman]

I expect the answer is that she is a woman so she never had a chance to get any work done because of all the men and Republicans who are constantly victimizing her,and if that does not work the story will be that it was lately Obama's fault (and that one she might be able to sell me on).

I will get back to you after I confirm.

Wait, I need to edit a few bits, I’ts not an empty pantsuit, It’s an overstuffed pantsuit filled with nastiness, trying to be actuate you know,

 

[Hawkeye10]

Wait, I need to edit a few bits, I’ts not an empty pantsuit, It’s an overstuffed pantsuit filled with nastiness, trying to be actuate you know,

I think you might be behind the curve....didn't she mostly retire that costume?

 

[woodsman]

I think you might be behind the curve....didn't she mostly retire that costume?

I believe there may be some kind of reward for a picture of the Hilderbeast not wearing a pantsuit, do you have a pic? That pic may need to be panoramic.