We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Sir I hope someday I can buy you your favorite adult beverage. It is the vey least i can do for such a marvelous piece about the Clinton's soiciopathologies.
I have written similar pieces but they come nowhere close to yours. Bravo , sir.
Now if we could only get about 20 million swing voters to read it, embrace it, and know it's truth, a bit of the peril we face would be diluted.
I heartily recommend that MF readers follow BD's impecible suggestion and read this great piece of work.
The Clinton's are not just your run of the mill slimy politician, they pose a very real risk to our country, as do their cauldron of toxic stew constituencies of fellow sociopaths, anarchists, and folks who just don't know any better.
Habu - My thanks! At one time I could imbibe such beverages, but my current medication regime and physical state makes that unwise. Coffee is about it these days... I do import from Denmark, however, as they are usually in first or second slot for per capita coffee drinking and, of course, first in candy consumption per person.
I was far too busy in the 1990's to pay lots of attention to politics, but the scandal du jour reeked. And when President Clinton ordered one of his people to start putting pressure on one of the analysts in our agency to change his stance to fit the political atmosphere, the President got an earful from our Director. I believe 'Congressional investigation into Executive meddling' was mentioned. You do not bully DoD analysts: lives are at stake, policy can take a hike.
As multple interviewers of HRC have pointed out: she will use body language to make it seem she agrees with you, even when stating the direct opposite. Interviewers are left not knowing what HRC actually thinks or believes. She looks for those that will help her, so that she can then turn them into victims... the multiple donor scandals, PLA scandals, staff scandals... all of that makes sense when you see how many have been cast aside not as people, but as objects. You do not treat your friends this way, nor loyal staff: the Clintons can and do. By trying to befriend the US, she will also, inevitably, turn us into victims.
Walt - I do, indeed, leave that to the professionals. I am not one in this field, and never sought to be one. The field has produced manuals in which characterized behavior for certain types of personality are delineated. I do with that what I do for the Law of Nations, Black Book of the Admiralty and Blackstone's Commentaries in application to 'terrorism': I examine descriptions of the activity and then look for the suitable label that applies to it. I am not a lawyer, either, and I am convinced that most who are international law 'experts' do not know this stuff. I take the dead-simple approach to examining things - see the descriptions and find the instances. When the instances become predominant the label begins to fit.
That said, sociopathy when practiced in the political arena is very public and the records go back decades on this couple. Amoral tends to also have an element of this thing known as 'self-preservation' - the Clintons, as a couple, not only lack that, but use that lack to their advantage to publicly wring emotion out of those that watch. Hillary, in particular, has stabbed multiple friends in the back in politics and yet she can still attract backers. That is not amoral, that is the ability to use personality to juggle the expectations and emotions of others while never revealing your actual emotions. Amoral indicates a clear lack of moral outlook, neither good nor ill but whatever suits, the Clintons, however, look to what suits them at the moment... amoral individuals do not recognize 'triangulation' as that would be recognizing something as valid on the moral scale. The Clintons recognize validity, but not for themselves, and change their moral outlook to suit personal need and agenda.
That pattern has been going on since the late 1980's and if we brush it off again then we are doing exactly as that agenda requires. I have problems thinking of the last 'amoral' President because being 'amoral' recognizes that there is no legitimacy in leadership, also.
I looked back to the earliest known writings of HRC and those are frightening, beyond the adolescent/young adult angst: she had come to recognize personal roles as tools to be used for herself, not as something reflecting who she is or was. It is part of that life stage to a certain degree, but the actual introspection to find out who you are seems to be missing with HRC.
Also, the moment you add any other characteristic to 'amoral' you are then treading into the complex area of multiple category referencing, which tends to remove the single label outlook as prime motivator. At that point one must look at other motivation types and see what their effects are, as multiple categories are indicative of effects, not causes.