Why is Hillary running for president?

[fskimospy]

You initially said there's no contradiction ("no dichotomy present") in the two statements, but then turn around and now say they're contradictory and "likely/probably" mutually exclusive. Which is it?

You do understand the meaning of the word "dichotomy"...right?

Dichotomy
1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>

This is what I said:

It's also odd to see people say she's 'willing to do anything to be president' and then say she isn't playing to win. How do those two statements fit together?

As anyone can plainly see, nothing in my question assumed two mutually exclusive states. I personally believe that they are mutually exclusive, but absolutely nothing in the question required you to believe so. In fact my question was an invitation for you to show how they were not.

If there is no requirement that those two states do not coexist, there's no dichotomy. You do understand the meaning of the word "dichotomy", right?

Why are these simple questions so hard to answer? Since you have already stated that you do not believe them to be mutually exclusive it should be simple for you to state why that is so.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

That doesn't even makes sense. You mean noone wants to lose, genius.

that's exactly what he said, derp diggler.

 

[SP33Demon]

that's exactly what he said, derp diggler.

No one running for president is playing not to lose =! no one wants to lose. Low IQ hurting your head with double negatives?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is what I said:

This is exactly what you said and keep ignoring as if it's going to go away: "No dichotomy present". These are your exact words, not mine. And for the record, dichotomy doesn't strictly mean "mutually exclusive"...it means contradictory as well as the definition clearly states. You attempts to ignore your blatant contradictions are pathetic.

As anyone can plainly see, nothing in my question assumed two mutually exclusive states. I personally believe that they are mutually exclusive, but absolutely nothing in the question required you to believe so. In fact my question was an invitation for you to show how they were not.

If there is no requirement that those two states do not coexist, there's no dichotomy. You do understand the meaning of the word "dichotomy", right?

Why are these simple questions so hard to answer? Since you have already stated that you do not believe them to be mutually exclusive it should be simple for you to state why that is so.

As anyone can plainly see, I didn't say "she isn't playing to win", I said that she's playing not to lose...you've twisted my words into something I never said in order to fabricate a dishonest strawman argument. Classic eskimospy...but intellectual honesty was never really your forte...was it?

 

[Exophase]

I'm sure the prospect of being the first female President would be motivation enough for any woman.

And I'm sure the vast majority of people who have the slightest knowledge of what a president does don't want to be president. I'm 100% sure that if I were a woman I wouldn't want to be president just to be the first and I can safely say the same for pretty much any other woman I know.

The combination of sheer work, responsibility, pressure, and scrutiny this job brings is hard to even conceptualize. These days the odds aren't even that good that very many people will especially like you. There are probably easier ways to gain that level of recognition and historical notability and definitely easier ways to gain that level of financial success.

 

[fskimospy]

This is exactly what you said and keep ignoring as if it's going to go away: "No dichotomy present". These are your exact words, not mine. And for the record, dichotomy doesn't strictly mean "mutually exclusive"...it means contradictory as well as the definition clearly states. You attempts to ignore your blatant contradictions are pathetic.

It is amusing watching you lash out when you know you're cornered.

Again, my post did not label them as contradictory either. It simply said that I found them odd and asked you to explain how they fit together.

As anyone can plainly see, I didn't say "she isn't playing to win", I said that she's playing not to lose...you've twisted my words into something I never said in order to fabricate a dishonest strawman argument. Classic eskimospy...but intellectual honesty was never really your forte...was it?

Ah, so we've reached the point that we always do where you accuse other people of lying.

Feel free to substitute 'playing not to lose' and consider the question resubmitted. If you have any other issues or questions about the wording of my post please feel free to tell me and I'll clarify them to the best of my ability.

You've spent several posts now trying to argue the definitions of words, throwing insults, making accusations of dishonesty, etc, as opposed to answering a very simple question that you already claim to know the answer to. Just stop with the game and answer it already.

 

[dank69]

That doesn't even makes sense. You mean noone wants to lose, genius.

Dafuq does Peter Noone have to do with anything?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No one running for president is playing not to lose =! no one wants to lose. Low IQ hurting your head with double negatives?

really? you're going to play that ridiculously trite 'low iq' card again. you've been sucker punched by that so many times it's laughable. And you're off on the double negative, but kudos for attempting to try!

 

[MongGrel]

No one running for president is playing not to lose =! no one wants to lose. Low IQ hurting your head with double negatives?

I wonder where speedy gets this stuff ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Ivji-ph4A

 

[mysticjbyrd]

This question was raised on PBS the other night. Sanders has a very clear message and we know why he is running, it's one I disagree with but it is an open and honest message and we all understand why he's running. Obama's was all about Hope when he was running. What is Hillary's?

She is an egomaniacal sociopath that is obsessed with power.

 

[MongGrel]

She is an egomaniacal sociopath that is obsessed wit power.

Wit Power FTW.

 

[Indus]

What's the matter? Slow News Day?

She's running for the exact same reason as in 2008.. power.. unlimited powah! And that's why I support Bernie primarily. If he can upset her in New York it may be possible to upset her again.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ah, so we've reached the point that we always do where you accuse other people of lying.

You intentionally and dishonestly twisted my words to suit your agenda. The reason we always seem to reach this point is that this kind of lying is not uncommon with you. And, for the record, I'm calling YOU on it...not "other people".

 

[fskimospy]

You intentionally and dishonestly twisted my words to suit your agenda. The reason we always seem to reach this point is that this kind of lying is not uncommon with you. And, for the record, I'm calling YOU on it...not "other people".

Oh did I now. You first resorted to word games and then when you lost there you decided to declare that you had been smeared by a one line question because I said 'playing to not lose' instead of 'not playing to win'. It is painfully obvious that all of this is an attempt to avoid answering.

For the third time here is a very simple question, rephrased to meet your standards:

It's also odd to see people say she's 'willing to do anything to be president' and then say she is playing to not lose. How do those two statements fit together?

If you have any other edits you would like me to make to this question so that you feel able to answer it I would be happy to accommodate you.

 

[Fern]

Why is Hillary running for president?

I've heard this question raised a number of times.

Many people expect a candidate to be able to articulate a clear and compelling reason why they are running.

IIRC, Chris Matthews has mentioned several times that Hillary can't seem to answer this question. He also usually mentions Ted Kennedy (IIRC) who apparently was posed this question in a debate and flunked it badly.

Invariably someone seems to propose her reason is "because it's my turn".

Fern

 

[Hugo Drax]

She is an egomaniacal sociopath that is obsessed with power.

She is definately onthe spectrum. travelgate was an interesting event. She was like a bull in a china shop right off the gate.

 

[jackstar7]

Sometimes they put your face on money.

 

[IGBT]

because she was told its "her turn".

 

[Zorkorist]

She was so done, when her husband left the Presidency in disgrace, and then she goes and becomes a Senator of New York.

Now she is going for President.

This lady is obviously very driven to succeed. She will not take no for an answer.

-John

 

[ElFenix]

Clinton left in disgrace? What world are you living in?

 

[Zorkorist]

He was impeached, or don't you remember?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_and_acquittal_of_Bill_Clinton

-John

 

[brycejones]

He was impeached, or don't you remember?

-John

So?

 

[Zorkorist]

Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

-John

 

[jackstar7]

Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

-John

The question remains: so?