If you have anything that actually shows evidence of impropriety, and not just a lot of noise about it given that she’s A) a high ranking official who B) would have met with these people anyways for legitimate reasons and C) they either before or after also gave to her charity, then by all means post it. Because saying it “looks” bad isn’t remotely as bad as being found guilty of discriminating against minorities, working with the mob, violating anti-trust laws, violating minimum wage and worker hiring laws, violating safety laws resulting in the death of employees, and I could go on but I’m getting tired of typing out all the things Trump has actually been found guilty of doing, and haven’t even mentioned a single thing he is suspected of maybe possibly doing just because a few folks who oppose him want to cast suspicion on a situation.
Anyone with the connections, the chutzpah, the money, and the will to make it this far in the race is going to have some bad personality traits. And this is just the audition for the job of distracting attention from the ones who really run things. By carefully modulating what gets amplified, and what falls flat, it can be made to appear that the left and the right both dislike Hillary for the same bullshit reasons. Thus, those reasons all cancel out, and any true progressive will know she’s clearly OK.
I think Trump is getting a pass because this race needs to look like a photo finish, for it to appear to have any legitimacy at all. You don’t think these outcomes can be left to chance, do you?
You do realize evaluating Hillary Clinton’s behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump? And you believe this guy would have been appointed (with zero related experience whatsoever) had he not donated $1 mil to the Clinton Foundation?
Dou believe it was ethical for foreign nations seeking approval for eeapons deals from the SoS to donate large sums to that same SoS’s charitable foundation?
I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between valid ethical concerns and conflicts of intetest and Fox news yokel-pandering. But thanks for the heads up.
You do realize evaluating Hillary Clinton’s behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump?
Do you? Because I do believe you are the one who asserted the comparison by stating her alleged “crimes” appear worse than the actual ones he’s been found guilty of (let alone his alleged crimes, such as bribing officials to drop investigations). Let’s review, shall we?
It’s more interesting to me that Clinton’s corruption (which dwarfs Trump’s in my opinion)
Yes, yes you did.
The mob… evicting minorities… workplace safety violations resulting in deaths… and yet putting a donor on a panel somehow is a bigger problem for you? The same thing politicians have been doing since the beginning of time? I may find it distasteful and wrong, but I don’t think it comes close to rising to the same level.
So, just to be clear, you think an appointment of someone potentially only partially qualified to a board (with at least one board member stating that the appointment had filled the role with someone with the required expertise) that has the appearance of being pay for play is more serious than the Trump Foundation making payment to the Florida AG (who requested the payment) who was overseeing a case Trump was being tried for, with the case being dropped after the payment was made, with an ensuing FEC investigation and fines? I don’t doubt that connections/cronyism/etc. were involved in the Clinton appointment.
Seriously, you honestly think that the former (an appointment of a donor who was accused by non-board members of being under-qualified, while board members approved) is more serious than payments to an Attorney General to drop charges for a crime?
The difference between Trump and Clinton is that Clinton bleeds when they hit her.
It’s the same with anyone/anything that is so obviously corrupt. Anyway, he’s a business tycoon. You’d expect him to be a corrupt psycho.
Clinton, however, is clean—but her supporters waver at the thought of dirt.
You have to be joking, she is very far from clean. She takes lying to a whole new level. What’s the latest? She claims that she didn’t know that the “C” on documents meant confidential. That claim is just not plausible for a secretary of state. Even if it were though, it would make her totally incompetent and unsuitable for the role of president.
I don’t think anyone seriously believes she is that incompetent though. She knew setting up the email server was wrong and it was done so she could avoid any scrutiny. She has reached Nixon levels of crookedness.
I have been discussing Clinton this whole thread. The initial point I made was that it was disingenuous to call all Clinton concerns ‘conspiracy theories’.
I come here to learn share and argue in good faith. I don’t like sophistry. At all. So go ahead and decontextualize away. I don’t argue with sophists.
Let’s just say, if you like conspiracy theories you are probably a Republican, or part of the Alt-Right, or whatever.
The most popular “Conservative” pundits have been slowly herding their followers away from reality for the past two decades.
That’s the problem with reality. You can’t change it to suit your needs.
I’d say this fits perfectly into my assessment of the “general corruption” of Washington DC-- this guy getting that job is not much different than Michael Brown being made head of FEMA (arguably it’s lower in scale, Brown was tasked with running a big government agency, not sitting on an advisory board), it’s the standard tit-for-tat BS that happens in our government, but is getting treated as something new and unprecedented. I don’t approve of it, but I recognize the issue is systemic, not isolated to one politician.
Your initial point also included the claim that Clinton’s corruption was more serious than Trump’s, and your reply was in a thread on that topic, not one claiming Clinton was above reproach.
I won’t deny that Clinton has the typical level of Washington insider corruption/pay-to-play funny business, or that she hasn’t worked diligently to avoid transparency (though given the unique levels of hyper-scrutiny she receives I honestly don’t blame her, even if I think it’s wrong). Campaign finance/lobbyists/etc. ensure anyone with a career in DC will be guilty of various improprieties along those lines. I don’t see Clinton doing anything unusual, though.
I do seriously question the claim that her level of corruption is more serious than that of Trump, whose corruption is shocking and would have long since knocked a typical candidate out of the race.
But the response from the crazy right fact free zone is that the WP is a corrupt arm of the Clinton conspiracy. They are impervious to the actual record.
No problem, they just ignore it. “GOP, reality free since 2000”.
Clinton allies in media and in the public knowingly bring up the minor or debunked things Clinton has been accused of in order to deflect from actual criticisms.
If you can flood the perception of your likely supporters with the notion that you’re always falsely accused then it makes it a lot harder to get any actual messages of your misdeeds across.
If Trump had been involved in the Whitewater Development Corporation it would just be a footnote among all his other failed business ventures.
Look, you guys are just feeding the troll. He’s clearly decided Fox is right, facts be damned, Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. Think you’re going to convert somebody like that? He’s got a whole bucket of NYT headlines to back up his position and never mind actual facts.
Spend your energy where it matters. GOTV.
I think we’ve seen that here before.
I have much higher expectations of the person on “my” side. Or as close as I’ll get. Trump is an incompetent clown of an organized criminal. There’s no news at all in reporting something stupid or bad he’s done.
I don’t think Clinton is dirty, so much as just enmeshed in the messy reality of party politics.
Whether it’s real corruption, 30 years of smearing, incompetence or some combination of all three, it’s still striking how badly she is doing against the worst candidate ever. Yeah, she’ll still win but…
There are still basically no signs out for her anywhere in Seattle, and lots of Bernie ones. I’ve literally seen more bumper stickers for “Giant Meteor” than for her.
She just isn’t a popular candidate. Maybe the debates will help.
The problem is… one of those things is specific, the other is subjective. What you define as “immoral”, others may not. Just because you personally object to something does not define whether it is “wrong” or “right” and it may or may not align with it being legal/illegal. That’s technically what the law is for. And if you find something immoral that is legal but you feel it shouldn’t be, that is when you get involved to (attempt to) have legislation changed to reflect the values you feel should be represented by your personal perspective (your personal morality).
Are you actually that much of a partisan that you believe no one could possibly question a politician from one party without being a member of the other party? I am hardly a trolley. I have been a lifelong progressive. I never said a word about ‘Benghazi’, never voiced any support in or mentioned a single Fox news smear, I honestly don’t know why you would even write that post.
