~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Fact: (As of Jan 28, 2016)
1) Bernie met with Obama @ WH
2) Bernie equals Hillary in Iowa
3) Bernie beating Hillary decisively in NH.
4) FBI email investigation not looking good for Hillary.
1) Obama doesn’t want Bernie as the nominee because he will probably lose the general election for a number of reasons. One is that he is a socialist and the public is not yet ready for that.
2) Obama gave Bernie the keys to Obama’s electoral organization.
3) Obama doesn’t like Hillary
4) Good form on the part of the Democrat party requires the appearance that Hillary was unfettered in her run as the party nominee.
5) The FBI concludes that Hillary is indictable and refers the investigation to the DOJ for charges. Obama approves.
Bernie runs the table before the convention. Beats Hillary decisively.
Hillary cannot be the nominee of the Democrat party via convention rules.
Obama throws Bernie under the bus because he is a socialist and not a true Democrat.
Hillary is indicted by the DOJ (with Obama’s approval).
Biden is offered as the Democrat nominee. He has been spared the long primary season and is prepared to battle the Republican nominee.
I was just wondering what I might do if I were Obama. I want to preserve my legacy and give socialism another 4-8 years to sink deep roots in America.
Beware the fallacy: "what is true for the part is true for the whole".
It seems lies between two people (part) is much different than lies told to the whole (entire population). In this later regard, it's like Hitler said---folks don't expect their government to lie, and when it does, there's decided tendency to conclude if the lie benefits a multitude of people, then it must be acceptable.
If a man believes what is shown to be a lie, it seems more likely he's an idiot than a liar. If the government says it's thus and so, people have right to believe it's truth, even if it's shown to be a lie. The remedy is for the body politic to officially condemn the liar, thru the election process, analysis by elected officials, or perhaps the judicial. (I have never recommended gun fire).
The most effective way to tell a lie to the body politic is to tell it to someone who believes it. Then, let them retell it with honesty and sincerity to all who will listen. Isn't this the way governments choose to tell their lies to their subjects? Is the person, who believes a lie he has been told, a liar when he repeats it?
Much depends upon the exact definition of lie---the following link yields good insight:http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/lie
From my perspective, the person who believes a lie, and then retells it, is in fact a liar (by technicality).
This is correct especially in considering a responsible person would not believe something, and state it as truth, without first determining the factual nature of the subject matter. If unsure, a responsible person would qualify what is said with: "I'm not sure, but...", or perhaps "in my opinion", and etc. etc.
Accordingly, we have all probably lied at some point, and the further question becomes "did we bring about injury because of the lie told?"
As you might expect by now, I have a different approach.
Because of what I have already said and the question I ask, I believe the answer to the question is in the heart of the person speaking. What he says is a lie and makes him a liar only if he intends to deceive or intends to be untruthful. However a person who believes what he says and does not intend to deceive is not a liar even though what he says may be untrue. In such a case, he is simply ignorant of the truth (for whatever reason).
Bottom line for me is that intending to tell an untruth is lying because it is an act of will. Telling an untruth that you believe to be true is not an act of the will to deceive another person and therefore is not a lie.
Years ago I used to refer to her as Madam Notbright. It continues to amaze me that in a nation that was built on freedoms and rights for individual people, some (mostly socialists) believe that classes of people are the things that truly warrant the attention of national leadership.
Her actions are that of a morbid bully.
Evaluating her using Geert Hofstede's cultural insights/dimensions shows that (s)he has 4 abnormal indexes (or indeces).
Her Masculinity Index is off the charts.
Her Uncertainty Avoidance Index is too high.
Her Collectivism Index is too high.
Her Power Distance Index is off the charts (outward influence on other people).
In summary, her apparent lack of faith and her lack of understanding regarding the Gospel of Grace leads her to believe that she (not the faithfulness of Jesus Christ), determines the salvation of another person.
She might make a good Muslim Imam.
A large bottom-feeding octopus; spewing ink
Time to revisit a wild theory.
So, old assumptions aside, it now appears that the democrat party may have the opportunity to offer a compromise candidate.
Bernie has lost control of his followers and cannot win. Bernie's followers mostly do not want to support Hillary because she is the party that cheated Bernie out a legitimate nomination.
Maybe someone will nominate Joe Biden as a compromise candidate.