Why Trump's naked corruption is less interesting than conspiracy theories about Clinton

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/09/06/why-trumps-naked-corruption.html


I feel better about voting for Jill Stein every single day.


It’s more interesting to me that Clinton’s corruption (which dwarfs Trump’s in my opinion) is summarily dismissed as conspiracy theory and is socially acceptable because she has a better personality,


The news media loves a horse race.

Yes, and they love this bigot & racist too.


They’re both technically not prosecutable.


A lot of it is conspiracy theory. I worked as a proofreader on a bunch of conservative political books during the 2008 elections, and some of the things that were said about her were seriously detached from reality. And, like we’ve seen with the Benghazi hearings, her opponents will try to make the Himalayas out of anything that might look bad for her. The thing I don’t quite get about it is that there’s enough real things to criticize that it seems unnecessary to make things up. Like the birther conspiracy and claiming Obama is a secret Muslim. It’s easier to stir up racist resentments than think about actual policy.


I have the best corruption. And bigotry. Nobody can compare with my bigotry. When I decide to bigot, I bigot big and better than anybody else. Crooked Hillary cannot even compete with my lying and cheating. She’s a lightweight.


It is news to no-one.

That’s it in a nutshell.


I had to deal with some Hillary-bashers yesterday. They insisted that the most damning thing about her is that she is a frumpy old lady who is not the least bit sexy. Somehow (not sure if I want to know how) Trump contrasts apparently by being a hawt sex magnet.


That sounds like the ‘I like Trump because he’s not afraid to say what he thinks’ folks. But also, the most predominant messages in our media and pop-culture are ‘you are fat ugly and nobody likes you’ so they can sell us the solutions to those problems. So I guess it makes sense that the reality TV watcher types make decisions based on that type of thing.


America loves the underdog.*


  • Trump 2016!

Of course. I am referring to when the legitimately immoral stuff is conveniently thrown out with the Sean Hannity-level hand- wringing stuff. Tip of the hat for having to stomach that stuff to pay the bills. I used to work with a guy that insisted on subjecting the warehouse to 3-4 hours of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity every day. On the plus side, after a few months I could finish almost any right-winger’s sentences for them. Which also, in my opinion, partly explained why the right manufactures tidy yet absurd Clinton offenses instead of focusing on the real stuff: that audience has a) a very shallow analytical depth, no objectivity/critical thinks whatsoever, and a short attention span b) a complete intolerance to nuance and distrust of moral complexity, and c) are only interested in narratives that consist of an easily remembered sentence or three (since their main form of communication is gossip).


Out of curiosity, what would you say are the top three specific examples of Clinton’s corruption for which we have unambiguous evidence that dwarf Trump’s corruption?

Here are my top three Trump items (difficult to pick out of the shockingly long list, there are so many I might be overlooking a more serious case):

• The Trump Institute paying off an AG to drop charges in FL for his fraud case (the Trump Institute paid AGs/govs in other states as well, and had charges dropped in TX with a payoff to the Gov.), while bragging that he pays politicians to do favors.

• Trump paying for lawyers to defend Mafia bosses he’d been associating with in construction payoffs and favors in his casino businesses.

• Trump violating housing discrimination laws by refusing to rent to African-Americans.


How about a whole bunch rolled up into one? Clinton Foundation pay to play. Legality does not interest me, morality does. Laws catch up to morality when we are talking about top down shit like this.

If I sound dismissive of Trump, I most certainly am not. But that is not the part of this narrative I am challenging.


This is the kind of fuzzy thinking I was hoping to avoid.

That changes the issue from something more objective to a value judgment that’s fuzzy. Trump’s a massive moral failure to my eyes on every front, but a comparison there would just be flinging pejoratives.

To my eyes that’s less serious compared to any of the three I listed, and we don’t have unambiguous evidence, rather an appearance of impropriety that’s complex given the realities of what a Sec. State does. YMMV.


Dude, come on. I am not going to individually cite every questionable Clinton Foundation relationship. Google them, they’re all there. Shady arms deals, shady access granted, shady appointments for donors. Clintom’s offenses are more concerning because she was and is a high level public official.


I’d asked for three. Why can’t you just list your top three specific cases for which there’s unambiguous evidence?


A lot of it IS conspiracy theory and blatant lies, The Washington Post just addressed a story about Hillary being fired from the Watergate investigation and found it was completely made up, but the story still circulates. I have yet to see evidence that Hillary Clinton is more corrupt than any other DC politician, which is to say they are all corrupt to a certain extent thanks to the way campaigning and lobbying have evolved. A lot of the charges directed at Clinton are things that were investigated and dismissed but keep coming back because the GOP wants to promote suspicion. Some of that stuff is a Rorschach test as well-- if three donors to the Clinton Foundation seek favors, and only one gets a meeting with Hillary is that proof of corruption, or did that one donor have legitimate government business with the State Dept.?


Because I’m thumb typing on an android phone? And because you have google?

1 Like

I do, but every example I’ve found seems less serious than the three I’d listed, which is why I was interested in the specifics so we’d have a concrete comparison rather than the kind of vague accusations and insinuations that seem to make up so much of what’s been flung out there. If it’s too hard to type, that’s fine, no worries.