The Clinton Thread II - Part 3

[E.NormusJohnson]

I don't disagree... But the President elect was the one that said before and after the election that massive fraud was happening. If we are to take him at his word then, ya'know...

I'll give him a chance (same if HC had won). If he governs as he campaigns I'll join ya'll in helping elect dems to all local. and state levels. This coming from a conserv. libertarian.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I'll give him a chance (same if HC had won). If he governs as he campaigns I'll join ya'll in helping elect dems to all local. and state levels. This coming from a conserv. libertarian.

That's besides the point though, isn't it? The President Elect said before and after the election there was massive voter fraud. If you take him at his word... Well then there's no reason not to look into it and no reason to be upset that there is at least an attempt at a recount.

Unless he was lying about it then an now. Which of course would have it's own implications, just as him campaigning one way and governing another also have their own implications, or him governing as he campaigned would also have implications.

And sorry but... This idea seems ludicrous. If he governs as he campaigns then he's a dangerous nutjob, but those that elected him who took him at face value were voting for willful ignorance, stupidity and insanity. But then the other half of his supporters say that he doesn't mean what he always says in which case he's an empty suit of a politician who by his very nature is simply taking advantage of the electorate and lied to his supporters.

Frankly, as it stands now there's no version of this man that inspires any hope for general competence at the least or principled governance and policy at best. Could he surprise us all. Yeah. I am not holding my breath given the continued engagement with the public via Twitter and the less than stellar administration he's putting together.

It's quite galling to see so many that proclaimed for years that character matters in politics now making excuses that they are hoping that the President Elect was actually LYING about all that he would do in order to assure us that he was actually a good pick for the highest office in the land.

 

[E.NormusJohnson]

Frankly, as it stands now there's no version of this man that inspires any hope for general competence at the least or principled governance and policy at best. Could he surprise us all. Yeah. I am not holding my breath given the continued engagement with the public via Twitter and the less than stellar administration he's putting together.

Ok... so how would you have explained it to those who voted against Hillary had she won the GE? People were not excited about her campaign at all... and she did her party a YUGE disservice by not offering a plan that wasn't anything but anti-Trump.

Ask any independent in the heartland what HC was running on as a platform that wasn't a continuation of Obama and you'd probably get this

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Ok... so how would you have explained it to those who voted against Hillary had she won the GE? People were not excited about her campaign at all... and she did her party a YUGE disservice by not offering a plan that wasn't anything but anti-Trump.

Ask any independent in the heartland what HC was running on as a platform that wasn't a continuation of Obama and you'd probably get this

You're asking what I would have done? I wouldn't have brought up voter fraud at all because the FACTS are that there has been no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country given BILLIONS of ballots. I wouldn't have riled up the masses with a lie.

And, sorry, I think it says something about those that voted for him in that they wanted to believe in something that was not so in order to justify their vote, which, real economic pain notwithstanding, was based on a **** metric ton of things, that again, were not so, such as the state of the inner cities in America, the fact that crime in NYC has not gone up since stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional (In fact in NYC crime is at a rate we have not seen since the 1950's) , that the screening process for refugees takes years, that the Obama Administration to the consternation of Hispanics has sent back more illegal entrants than the previous administrations, that despite the Democrats saving the American car industry the rust belt voters put into office a group that would not have lifted a finger to help save their jobs on principle...

The lies didn't come just from Trump the candidate. It seems a lot that voted for him were lying to themselves or woefully misinformed, just as they are when it comes to this voter fraud issue. Well being the ones that brought it up they have to live with the "reality" they created. You can't cry foul that people want to look into possible voting irregularities when before and after the election you claim there were millions of fraudulent votes cast.

But that's what happens when a candidate runs on things that are not so. It's gonna bite him and his supporters on the ass. They don't have a leg to stand on in terms of complaining about a recount. Again, if you didn't want a recount then you shouldn't have made it seem like every single state voting commission was corrupt. But he did, so...

 

[E.NormusJohnson]

And, sorry, I think it says something about those that voted for him in that they wanted to believe in something that was not so in order to justify their vote, which, real economic pain notwithstanding,

So their vote counted less than others/yours?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

So their vote counted less than others/yours?

Where is that even implied?

Of course their vote counts. But does that stop me from having an opinion that their justification for said vote is on all sorts of shaky ground logically, politically, or on a level of common sense given the information that was widely available? Cuz again, there is enough evidence out there to prove that.

And before anyone chimes in... you can say that a person has highly flawed judgment or is hypocritical in their thought process without calling them a bad person per se. I simply think that a lot those folks showed how bad their judgment really is in making the decision they did given what we knew about the two candidates, and this isn't a one off thing because I suspect many of those same voters exercised the same bad judgment in electing George W. Bush twice with some very specious reasoning as well, and again... When you base your reasoning on something that is not so it will always bite you on the ass. Unfortunately within a Democratic Republic those affects don't stay quarantined to just you and your life. They end up affecting us all.

 

[MaceB]

... and she did her party a YUGE disservice by not offering a plan that wasn't anything but anti-Trump.

Ask any independent in the heartland what HC was running on as a platform that wasn't a continuation of Obama and you'd probably get this

Oh man, she had sooo many plans. If you went to her website, she was a detail oriented candidate, carrying specific proposals for specific problems. Now, she didn't do a good job of emphasizing those ideas. She let the election become about personality faults instead of policy choices.... despite her best efforts to do the opposite.
And there's nothing wrong with running on a platform that was just a continuation of Obama. The guy resided over epic civil rights decisions, impactful environmental treaties, significant foreign policy shifts (i.e. the historic Iran Nuke deal), an increase in wall street profits, business confidence, consumer confidence, and employment. He minimazed the deficit, and insured millions of people at the same time. All Hillary had to do was say,.... "yeah, let's keep doing that." But that winning message got lost in identity politics.
Fake or not, she just had too much baggage. She should have never been the candidate after such a shaky primary showing. The voters were speaking, but Dems weren't listening.

 

[E.NormusJohnson]

And there's nothing wrong with running on a platform that was just a continuation of Obama. The guy resided over epic civil rights decisions, impactful environmental treaties, significant foreign policy shifts (i.e. the historic Iran Nuke deal), an increase in wall street profits, business confidence, consumer confidence, and employment.

Jobs, Jobs... Jobs.

Running on Obama's platform .. regardless of how popular he is as a person... was not a winning game. Even his own coalition couldn't be bothered to come out for Hillary to make sure that platform had another 4 years.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Oh man, she had sooo many plans. If you went to her website, she was a detail oriented candidate, carrying specific proposals for specific problems. Now, she didn't do a good job of emphasizing those ideas. She let the election become about personality faults instead of policy choices.... despite her best efforts to do the opposite.
And there's nothing wrong with running on a platform that was just a continuation of Obama. The guy resided over epic civil rights decisions, impactful environmental treaties, significant foreign policy shifts (i.e. the historic Iran Nuke deal), an increase in wall street profits, business confidence, consumer confidence, and employment. He minimazed the deficit, and insured millions of people at the same time. All Hillary had to do was say,.... "yeah, let's keep doing that." But that winning message got lost in identity politics.
Fake or not, she just had too much baggage. She should have never been the candidate after such a shaky primary showing. The voters were speaking, but Dems weren't listening.

I completely agree with this and I'd like to add that Hillary (intentionally or not) had this smug ass, it's my turn attitude which I think turned off a lot of people who otherwise would have gladly voted against Trump.

 

[DeadPresident]

I completely agree with this and I'd like to add that Hillary (intentionally or not) had this smug ass, it's my turn attitude which I think turned off a lot of people who otherwise would have gladly voted against Trump.

It was particularly evident at the debates, I forget which one specifically, but in general she did have the smug thing going on way too strong. Half of her speeches and campaign statements seemed like she was just going through the motions because the result was assured.

She's nowhere near as charismatic or likable as Obama is, so just parroting his platform in hindsight seems like a poor oversight on her and her team's part.

 

[MaceB]

Jobs, Jobs... Jobs.

Running on Obama's platform .. regardless of how popular he is as a person... was not a winning game. Even his own coalition couldn't be bothered to come out for Hillary to make sure that platform had another 4 years.

I just don't think it was sold properly. You say, jobs jobs jobs, but Obama started with what...something like 8-9% unemployment? Now it's at like 5%. If it's all about jobs, then what more could you want than to carry Obama's legacy? Job creation was at an all time low with Bush, even while giving huge tax cuts to high earners and deregulation. Bill Clinton created more jobs than H.W. Bush and Bush Jr, combined multiplied by 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

There have been many races won with far worse incumbents to tout than what Hillary had with Obama. Based on Obama's extreme success, this was Hillary's race to lose. And she did, but not because of her policy positions... it was because she couldn't escape the impression she gave off of being a political insider.

QUOTE=DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs;34499145]I completely agree with this and I'd like to add that Hillary (intentionally or not) had this smug ass, it's my turn attitude which I think turned off a lot of people who otherwise would have gladly voted against Trump.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I say, this election is going to go down in History. How the democrats sacrificed the better candidate, forgetting about policy in favor of the next in line is going to go down as one of the big political blunders of modern times. ..At least I hope so.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

What's crazy is Hillary has known how she comes off has been a problem since at least the 08 election if not further back yet they did absolutely nothing to address it. That tells me she was just too scared of gaffes and things that could have been used in a negative light to try and go out and show she's a politician for the people (shes' not). That would've really gone a long way.

My cousin is an independent and one of those people that wait till the last minute to decide who to vote for (sheer insanity IMO) and another female friend of mine that is independent both said the same thing: Hillary just didn't excite them. If you're the first female to run for president of this country and don't have average working women excited for you that's a big problem. Then taking into account who she ran against it makes it an even bigger problem.

 

[Erzengel]

She probably agreed to toe the line back in 2008 with probably promises of a cabinet position and support in 2016.

 

[MaceB]

What's crazy is Hillary has known how she comes off has been a problem since at least the 08 election if not further back yet they did absolutely nothing to address it. That tells me she was just too scared of gaffes and things that could have been used in a negative light to try and go out and show she's a politician for the people (shes' not). That would've really gone a long way.

My cousin is an independent and one of those people that wait till the last minute to decide who to vote for (sheer insanity IMO) and another female friend of mine that is independent both said the same thing: Hillary just didn't excite them. If you're the first female to run for president of this country and don't have average working women excited for you that's a big problem. Then taking into account who she ran against it makes it an even bigger problem.

Yeah, but, you know, try to see it from her POV. Here's a lady who has been villianized for thing after thing, most of which is completely imagined. I mean, W. oversaw a time with more attacks and more deaths on foreign embassies, but it's only an issue for her. Others have used private servers, but it's only an issue for her. And the right absolutely detests her. Why? All she's ever done is work on behalf of children's issues for most of her life, working as a moderate for all intents and purposes. Someone who's knowledgable, accomplished, and wiling to compromise. But in the conservative upside down world, she's a killer, a conspirator, a double dealer.

So after choosing to run for the highest office in the land, a historic thing for a woman...She probably was afraid of the conservative echo chamber. She knew that they'd do everything they could to otherize her to the public. That'd she'd be subjected to unequal standards. So can you blame her for playing it safe? She chose to ignore the absurdities, trusting that a measured, calculated performance would win over the middle of America. In any rational world, all she'd have to do is be calm and Statesman-like, and that'd be enough against Trump, right? Normally, you'd think so.

Unfortunately, she drove the car's auto pilot right off the cliff. Her calculating, cautious nature got the best of her. She under appreciated how fake she came off to voters I think. The writing was on the wall, but in a world with such distorted priorities, no one on her team knew how to correctly decipher what was happening.

It's a true shame that so much hay was made over her weaknesses, when she has so many strengths: her qualifications, her life long civic service, her attention to detail, her cautious and deliberative nature, etc. It's ironic that in a system obsessed with identity politics, we'd openly deride character attributes like being "calm and measured" as fake, but then also value character attributes like showmanship, charisma, and braggadocio as fact.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah, but, you know, try to see it from her POV. Here's a lady who has been villianized for thing after thing, most of which is completely imagined. I mean, W. oversaw a time with more attacks and more deaths on foreign embassies, but it's only an issue for her. Others have used private servers, but it's only an issue for her. And the right absolutely detests her. Why? All she's ever done is work on behalf of children's issues for most of her life, working as a moderate for all intents and purposes. Someone who's knowledgable, accomplished, and wiling to compromise. But in the conservative upside down world, she's a killer, a conspirator, a double dealer.

So after choosing to run for the highest office in the land, a historic thing for a woman...She probably was afraid of the conservative echo chamber. She knew that they'd do everything they could to otherize her to the public. That'd she'd be subjected to unequal standards. So can you blame her for playing it safe? She chose to ignore the absurdities, trusting that a measured, calculated performance would win over the middle of America. In any rational world, all she'd have to do is be calm and Statesman-like, and that'd be enough against Trump, right? Normally, you'd think so.

Unfortunately, she drove the car's auto pilot right off the cliff. Her calculating, cautious nature got the best of her. She under appreciated how fake she came off to voters I think. The writing was on the wall, but in a world with such distorted priorities, no one on her team knew how to correctly decipher what was happening.

It's a true shame that so much hay was made over her weaknesses, when she has so many strengths: her qualifications, her life long civic service, her attention to detail, her cautious and deliberative nature, etc. It's ironic that in a system obsessed with identity politics, we'd openly deride character attributes like being "calm and measured" as fake, but then also value character attributes like showmanship, charisma, and braggadocio as fact.

None of it's imagined at all.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

(click image to enlarge)

Out of 26 elections - closest 5 in electoral vote:
1) 2000 | G. W. Bush (R) vs. Gore (D) | +1.0R
2) 1916 | Wilson (D) vs. Hughes (R) | +4.4D
3) 2004 | G. W. Bush (R) vs. Kerry (D) | +6.5R
4) 1976 | Carter (D) vs. Ford (R) | +10.6D
5) 2016* | Trump (R) vs. H. Clinton (D) | + 13.8R
* 2016 results not final

Out of 26 elections - closest 5 in popular vote:
1) 1960 | Kennedy (D) vs. Nixon (R) | +0.17D
2) 2000 | Gore (D) vs. G. W. Bush (R) | +0.51D
3) 1968 | Nixon (R) vs. Humphrey (D) | +0.70R
4) 2016* | H. Clinton (D) vs. Trump (R) | +1.86D
5) 1976 | Carter (D) vs. Ford (R) | +2.07D
* 2016 results not final

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Yeah, but, you know, try to see it from her POV. Here's a lady who has been villianized for thing after thing, most of which is completely imagined. I mean, W. oversaw a time with more attacks and more deaths on foreign embassies, but it's only an issue for her. Others have used private servers, but it's only an issue for her. And the right absolutely detests her. Why? All she's ever done is work on behalf of children's issues for most of her life, working as a moderate for all intents and purposes. Someone who's knowledgable, accomplished, and wiling to compromise. But in the conservative upside down world, she's a killer, a conspirator, a double dealer.

So after choosing to run for the highest office in the land, a historic thing for a woman...She probably was afraid of the conservative echo chamber. She knew that they'd do everything they could to otherize her to the public. That'd she'd be subjected to unequal standards. So can you blame her for playing it safe? She chose to ignore the absurdities, trusting that a measured, calculated performance would win over the middle of America. In any rational world, all she'd have to do is be calm and Statesman-like, and that'd be enough against Trump, right? Normally, you'd think so.

Unfortunately, she drove the car's auto pilot right off the cliff. Her calculating, cautious nature got the best of her. She under appreciated how fake she came off to voters I think. The writing was on the wall, but in a world with such distorted priorities, no one on her team knew how to correctly decipher what was happening.

It's a true shame that so much hay was made over her weaknesses, when she has so many strengths: her qualifications, her life long civic service, her attention to detail, her cautious and deliberative nature, etc. It's ironic that in a system obsessed with identity politics, we'd openly deride character attributes like being "calm and measured" as fake, but then also value character attributes like showmanship, charisma, and braggadocio as fact.

I get what you're saying but I see the exact opposite from all the things you mentioned. Maybe it's my background in sales or reading crowds when I DJ but they played almost the same role as Romney in 2012.

She should have recognized playing it safe was the worst possible option considering not only her opponent but also the Average Joe's complaints of her coming off fake (which is not new). I'm in no way implying she should have stopped to Trump's level because that is not a game she was going to win. Had she made a concerted effort to not only break down her plans for the masses but also utilized Uncle Bernie's movement with him as her VP pick it would've made a world of difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but before the town hall debate she didn't do many non-planned (basically scripted) campaign stops nor did she take questions from the press all that often. If she wanted to take the high road than she needed an attack dog with some bite which Bernie would've done for her.

 

[Clark-Kent]

I don't even think Trump believes there is voter fraud. He's advertising himself again and just spouting whatever for attention. Really needs to stop that fake behavior, cause it's not going to fly when he officially takes over the country.

 

[MaceB]

None of it's imagined at all.

It kinda is though. If you had to summarize all the Hillary Clinton scandals as briefly as possible, it'd go something like "reasonably suspicious activity, relatively innoculous findings after investigation." There have been A LOT of accusations against this woman, some more based on truth, some less.... but none of it has come up with a smoking gun that directly links her to criminal activity. There's no direct proof of a quid pro quo - only the strong suspicion of it.

Whitewater - 8 years of investigations, no evidence that could lead to an indictment of any wrong doing.

Vince Foster - FBI and independent investigations cleared the Clintons on this issue. It sells a lot of books, DVDs, and such, but there is no clear evidence that suggests Foster was anything but one of many, many suicides that happened during that time in the country's history.

Benghazi - total, top to bottom witch hunt. Again, W. presided over more attacks and more deaths at US consulates and embassies. There was conflicting information on the ground, and the white house made a premature conclusion... that's it. There is no clear evidence that anyone asked Hillary's department for immediate help, and they refused to grant it as events were happening. There is no evidence of an elaborate set up to downplay it as an Islamic Terrorist event.

E-mail scandal - this one has a grain of truth, in that even though Hillary did what several SOS offices have done before her... she should have requested clearance in writing of this decision to have a separate server. It was a mistake, but even after Wiki-Leaks, there is no compelling, indictable evidence that shows a quid pro-quo. Out of all the messages leaked, there has not been one that anyone has come out with where members of her office are stating that they trade consequential government favors in favor of personal or Clinton Foundation interests.

Anything Clinton Foundation related - ridiculous. The Clinton Foundation continues to be a huge non-profit source for good in the world.

And then, on top of it all being ridiculous... isn't it ironic that the voters would vote against political cronyism by voting in a man with thousands of potential conflicts of interest? Even today, Trump's foreign interests are so much larger and more consequential in scale than anything that Hillary has been accused. Like, at best, the e-mails are suspicious at best. But we know that Trump has oil interests that could directly conflict with US interests. Jeeze. Hillary's biggest crime has always been being an ambitious, capable woman who probably values privacy more than she should.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Hillary lacked charisma ect. ect., but the decades of tin foil hat "facts" about her trickled down pretty well to the average voter. Like her or disagree with her policy proscription, the end result was still swaths of people making an important decision based on bald faced misinformation. It takes two to make a lie effective. Someone has to tell it and another party has to be willing to swallow it whole. There's a lot of swallowing going on with a certain slice of the electorate.

 

[TheVileOne]

It kinda is though. If you had to summarize all the Hillary Clinton scandals as briefly as possible, it'd go something like "reasonably suspicious activity, relatively innoculous findings after investigation." There have been A LOT of accusations against this woman, some more based on truth, some less.... but none of it has come up with a smoking gun that directly links her to criminal activity. There's no direct proof of a quid pro quo - only the strong suspicion of it.

Whitewater - 8 years of investigations, no evidence that could lead to an indictment of any wrong doing.

Vince Foster - FBI and independent investigations cleared the Clintons on this issue. It sells a lot of books, DVDs, and such, but there is no clear evidence that suggests Foster was anything but one of many, many suicides that happened during that time in the country's history.

Benghazi - total, top to bottom witch hunt. Again, W. presided over more attacks and more deaths at US consulates and embassies. There was conflicting information on the ground, and the white house made a premature conclusion... that's it. There is no clear evidence that anyone asked Hillary's department for immediate help, and they refused to grant it as events were happening. There is no evidence of an elaborate set up to downplay it as an Islamic Terrorist event.

E-mail scandal - this one has a grain of truth, in that even though Hillary did what several SOS offices have done before her... she should have requested clearance in writing of this decision to have a separate server. It was a mistake, but even after Wiki-Leaks, there is no compelling, indictable evidence that shows a quid pro-quo. Out of all the messages leaked, there has not been one that anyone has come out with where members of her office are stating that they trade consequential government favors in favor of personal or Clinton Foundation interests.

Anything Clinton Foundation related - ridiculous. The Clinton Foundation continues to be a huge non-profit source for good in the world.

And then, on top of it all being ridiculous... isn't it ironic that the voters would vote against political cronyism by voting in a man with thousands of potential conflicts of interest? Even today, Trump's foreign interests are so much larger and more consequential in scale than anything that Hillary has been accused. Like, at best, the e-mails are suspicious at best. But we know that Trump has oil interests that could directly conflict with US interests. Jeeze. Hillary's biggest crime has always been being an ambitious, capable woman who probably values privacy more than she should.

You admitting there was a grain of truth proves that not all of it was imagined.

The Wikileaks e-mails did prove that the media was leaking debate questions to her.

The Clinton Foundation? This report came from CNN of all places:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/

What's the issue with transparency?
Who the foundation was getting money from, basically. When Clinton took the State Department job in 2008, she promised President Barack Obama that the foundation would publish all its donors every year. And ... that didn't happen.
State Department ordered to review 15,999 new Clinton emails
Reuters discovered that from 2010 to 2013, the foundation's health arm wasn't disclosing all of its donors -- leaving out countries like Switzerland and lumping together individuals as one big group. And the foundation didn't tell the State Department that countries such as Australia and the UK doubled and tripled their donations between 2009 and 2012 while Clinton was secretary.

Sorry, but that's not imagined. That's reporting from CNN and REUTERS.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

String her up.

 

[TheVileOne]

Hillary lacked charisma ect. ect., but the decades of tin foil hat "facts" about her trickled down pretty well to the average voter. Like her or disagree with her policy proscription, the end result was still swaths of people making an important decision based on bald faced misinformation. It takes two to make a lie effective. Someone has to tell it and another party has to be willing to swallow it whole. There's a lot of swallowing going on with a certain slice of the electorate.

None of it was bald faced.

 

[MaceB]

You admitting there was a grain of truth proves that not all of it was imagined.

Technically, I said "most of it" was imagined, so I was never trying to say that there was NO kernel of truth to any of it. Some of the best lies have kernels of truth to them. But again, at best, it's a suspicion of a crime, not a crime itself. Essentially, she broke a widely accepted procedural rule that was designed to stop crony leadership. Sure, she broke the procedural rule... but there is no evidence that she had an innappripriate qui-pro-quo. At best, the e-mail scandal proves she had the opportunity, but that's it. Thus, mostly, imagined.

The Wikileaks e-mails did prove that the media was leaking debate questions to her.

First, it is silly to think that she didn't know the general topics that would be discussed. Second, there are reports that Trump, too, got questions beforehand. Third, this is more of a scandal against the DNC then Hillary. Fourth, there's usually a prospectus of possible questions and topics given ahead of this sort of thing. Fifth, we don't know how these questions came to her, if she prepped for this particular question, etc.... in short, again, only the suspicion of poor actions, no evidence of actual misdeeds. Sixth, getting a debate question ahead of time is WAY different than knowingly spreading classified information for personal gain. Again, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill...blowing up scandals to such an extent that they are mostly imaginary.

The Clinton Foundation? This report came from CNN of all places:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/

Sorry, but that's not imagined. That's reporting from CNN and REUTERS.

I'm hoping you read this and realize this article says nothing... only what the Foundation is, what it does, and an overview that is ironically called "why the suspicion?" In that section, it essentially says there could have been quid-pro-quos (though no evidence of such is actually given). Again, the opportunity was available as many of the donors of the Foundation were also talking to the State Department. This actually means nothing because of course high business philanthropic organizations would quite naturally talk to a reputable group like the Clinton Foundation as well as the US Government at the same time. And think of what you're saying here. That a group that wants to help gender equality in Southern Africa is helping the Clinton Foundation do exactly that in order to get talks with government officials to...... do what exactly? To do more for that worthy cause? Dastardly stuff.

Let's also again underscore that if these sorts of things were actually a concern for you, then it'd seem to make more sense that you'd be much more unnerved by the Trump Foundation, which had equally damning evidence (at least) of using non-profit donations to finance business interests.

So for me, I'm not gonna back down from my statement. Most of the Hillary Clinton scandals are imaginary... and at best, the scandals prove only a reasonable suspicion. Meanwhile if that's enough for you, then there was certainly just as much reason to be suspicious of Trump

 

[TheVileOne]

Technically, I said "most of it" was imagined, so I was never trying to say that there was NO kernel of truth to any of it. Some of the best lies have kernels of truth to them. But again, at best, it's a suspicion of a crime, not a crime itself. Essentially, she broke a widely accepted procedural rule that was designed to stop crony leadership. Sure, she broke the procedural rule... but there is no evidence that she had an innappripriate qui-pro-quo. At best, the e-mail scandal proves she had the opportunity, but that's it. Thus, mostly, imagined.

To me you are basically admitting that there is a certain amount of shady behavior behind Clinton. So claiming it was imagined is false.

First, it is silly to think that she didn't know the general topics that would be discussed. Second, there are reports that Trump, too, got questions beforehand. Third, this is more of a scandal against the DNC then Hillary. Fourth, there's usually a prospectus of possible questions and topics given ahead of this sort of thing. Fifth, we don't know how these questions came to her, if she prepped for this particular question, etc.... in short, again, only the suspicion of poor actions, no evidence of actual misdeeds. Sixth, getting a debate question ahead of time is WAY different than knowingly spreading classified information for personal gain. Again, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill...blowing up scandals to such an extent that they are mostly imaginary.

I'm not talking about Trump's potential corruption or wrongdoing. You are trying to downplay Clinton's own by focusing on her opponent's. Donna Brazile admitted to sending the questions to the Clinton campaign in the e-mail. That's from CNN itself.

I'm hoping you read this and realize this article says nothing... only what the Foundation is, what it does, and an overview that is ironically called "why the suspicion?" In that section, it essentially says there could have been quid-pro-quos (though no evidence of such is actually given). Again, the opportunity was available as many of the donors of the Foundation were also talking to the State Department. This actually means nothing because of course high business philanthropic organizations would quite naturally talk to a reputable group like the Clinton Foundation as well as the US Government at the same time. And think of what you're saying here. That a group that wants to help gender equality in Southern Africa is helping the Clinton Foundation do exactly that in order to get talks with government officials to...... do what exactly? To do more for that worthy cause? Dastardly stuff.

I did read the report. I read a lot of promises were unfulfilled, and the foundation accepted donations that provide a conflict of interest.

Let's also again underscore that if these sorts of things were actually a concern for you, then it'd seem to make more sense that you'd be much more unnerved by the Trump Foundation, which had equally damning evidence (at least) of using non-profit donations to finance business interests.

I'm not talking about Trump though. I'm talking about Clinton and what she has done. Her shady business dealings and what she's been accused of, not all of it was imagined.

So for me, I'm not gonna back down from my statement. Most of the Hillary Clinton scandals are imaginary... and at best, the scandals prove only a reasonable suspicion. Meanwhile if that's enough for you, then there was certainly just as much reason to be suspicious of Trump

Except they aren't. I never said Trump was free of suspicion because I don't believe that. There is clear heavy basis in all the accusations of corruption and shady dealings on Clinton's part.