politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sure
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Recording-released-of-Clinton-suggesting-rigging-2006-Palestinian-election-471129
That's no where near a citation for the statement.
Wait...
You're not disputing that Hillary casually said we should have rigged a foreign election?
You wanted a source that when the Secretary of the State said "we" she meant the state department?
Your original statement is not supported.
I'm legitimately trying to help here...
But you need to tell me what you're actually asking for.
Do you need Hillary explicitly saying she wanted the INR (the intelligence agency she controlled when making the statement) because if she meant something like the CIA then somehow her comments aren't a big deal?
She didn't say that in the citation provided. Something other than fantasy would be good.
Why can't you just say what you mean?
She said:
She literally said "we" should have rigged the election...
While in a discussion about the actions of the State department...
That's what rigging an election means, determining who would win it rather than letting the votes determine it.
The only way I can possibly think you have a valid compliant, is if you're saying that her "we" meant American intelligence agencies in general (no idea how that makes a difference) and not "we" as the head of the state department meaning the state department and their own intelligence agency...
And if your argument is that pedantic, it makes sense why you won't just say it, but not why you keep replying.
I think this is out of context as this was the election where a big issue was armed political parties. Its easy to link to an article that cherry picks parts of a conversation and say. see this was said when the rest of the conversation may explain it a bit. Its only the hisotrical context which lets us know a bit more context around the issues in that election. Many people expressed issues with armed groups being able to run as a party.
She said it in 2006, when she was a senator, not the Secretary of State. So I’d argue she absolutely did not mean “we” as “the state department.” She likely meant “we” as “the United States Government.” Either way, at the time she would not have been in a position to tell anyone to rig the election, being a democratic senator with a republican in the White House.
From the article:
She wasn't the secretary of state when she said it, and probably had no idea that she would ever be secretary of state. I'm not sure why you would think the "we" is the state department.
Additionally there's no context around this quote so it's a pretty significant leap to infer that "Hillary casually said we should have rigged a foreign election". Her next sentence could have very well have been "But we didn't, and we never will because that isn't how we operate". Or it could have been "We actually did try, but we failed because we ran out of funding". Or "That's what I'm hearing from the leaders of Fatah anyway".
Hillary is a pretty big POS and it's pretty easy to find shit she did that is horrible but this quote doesn't match up with what you're trying to show.