We live in the Clinton age. CAn you prove anything? No? Then there’s nothing there.
Yes, we live in an era where evidence matters and trying to blow smoke to create a controversy out of nothing gets you laughed at. How unimaginably fucking terrible.
It must be hard knowing that the fact the latest Benghazi investigation didn’t turn up any evidence of Clinton doing anything wrong will mean Clinton doesn’t go to prison for her role in Benghazi, but one must make allowances for the fact most people aren’t as politically correct as you and the GOP. They allow stupid things like facts to influence their decisions.
It’s gone a bit beyond that, as you demonstrate below:
Clinton defenders keep on talking in terms of prison and indictments as if any wrongdoing short of that isn’t worth mentioning. Well, if Trump hasn’t been indicted and convicted, and if the NRA hasn’t been proven to have filmed in a cemetary illegaly, then there’s no controversy here. THey said they filmed outside, so that’s that.
…because Clinton detractors keep on talking in terms of prison and indictments. Context is your friend.
Also, I’m amused that you’re ascribing thought processes such as this…
…to Clinton, as if this isn’t pretty much the SOP for the right-wing media. It wasn’t the Clintons that drove us into a “post-truth” society; it was a concerted effort by neoconservatives that pushed that particular agenda (as openly admitted by Dick Cheney). And now you’ve got the post-truth candidate in Trump, a man who can contradict himself three times in the same sentence without losing a follower.
Trump’s a bad candidate based on what he says, that’s fair game. But if we can’t take stories insinuating wrongdoing on Clinton’s part seriously, then we can’t take such stories seriously for anyone.
Right. There are so many insinuations against Clinton because she’s corrupt, and we know she’s corrupt because there are so many insinuations against her. Logic!
You’re not even trying anymore, man.
The convention is setting up to be a disaster for the Trump campaign. Either he says outrageous shit that causes Republicans to distance themselves further, or he underwhelms people with small a lack of party unity and presence and boring speeches.
Trump actually missed an opportunity to unite the party behind a pro-life message after the recent SCOTUS ruling. Worse, his silence on the case is now causing some religious conservatives to question his authenticity on the issue. If there was a hanging curve ball he could have hit out of the park, that was probably it. He won’t get too many more of those.
With Trump, there is no need to insinuate. He’ll tell you himself. Proudly and loudly.
Are you now calling insinuation a bad practice? And that you’re going to cease engaging in it?
Is Trump leading in any state that’s been polled recently? Where *are *his safe havens anymore?
No, we know she’s got ethics problems because many of her ethics issues are well substantiated. Simply declaring them to be nothing doesn’t make them nothing.
But whatever level of evidence you require, be consistent. All candidates should receive the same benefit of the doubt.
Except that’s not what you said. You said:
Nothing there about “well-substantiated”.
Nor does simply declaring them to be something make them something, as your various assertions about Obama have demonstrated over the years.
We’ve had decades of utterly UNsubstantiated smears about Hillary Clinton. There are almost certainly legitimate issues to be found (as there are with Obama) but when the “WOLF!” alarm is going off at full blast 24/7 for years on end I think we can be excused for demanding a higher level of evidence that an actual wolf has turned up.
Sound advice. Perhaps you might consider it at some point.
All that means is that Republicans have speculated about supposed transgressions.
But it’s not us who are declaring the allegations to be nothing, it’s all these Benghazi panels that keep closing down with nothing that are declaring the allegations to be nothing.
If these things ever came back with a damned indictment, sanction, harshly-written words, or anything other than “well, yes, we should have done a better job”, then we’d be having a different discussion and HRC would not be the nominee and current front-runner for the Presidency.
But they keep finding nothing. Like Whitewater, like Travelgate and Filegate and Pardongate and BimboEruptionGate and on and on, so much time and effort has been spent to find what, Adaher?
Nothing.
Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, y’all did find that Bill Clinton did not want to tell Ken Starr that he was cheating on his wife. Good going.
Kasich preens while Trump fumes: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/john-kasich-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Romney’s family is just begging for Mittens to jump in the race.
Which is surprising as, back in 2012, Mitt’s wife struck me as the most reluctant First Lady candidate in my lifetime.
I can’t begrudge Kasich a little of the ole neener-neener. But the take away from that article is that Kasich has a spokesman named “Shrimpf”. That’s even worse than “Drumpf”.
Even $8 million (1.4 cash on hand, 6.6 fundraised) only goes so far.
The New York Times has the scoop on the other business training scam Trump was running last decade;
Every passing day just shows more and more that Trump isn’t a billionaire financial genius, he’s a sleazy con artist.
I suspect he’d be ahead in deep red states, if they bothered to poll them. A new poll has him behind (often far behind) in all the battleground states, however.
I already thought he was a right wing jackhole, but now he’s revealed himself to be incredibly weaselly as well. How much you want to bet that whatever happens in November, he’ll selectively cite one of these blog posts to “prove” he was right all along? Easy to make accurate predictions if you predict it both ways!
ETA:
I was wondering after seeing that commercial for “Trump: the Game” if anyone ever checked on whether the proceeds really went to charity.