I remember Hillary perpetuating the Muslim thing.
I think this is unintentional irony. The OP is asking for the merits of Clinton in her own right, not as a comparison to Sanders or Trump. Your response is, compare her to Sanders or Trump. Some of this is a result of the two party system but this is just blatant.
wrong thread.
Please tell us more.
Then why haven’t Republicans just started that paradigm with every major Democrat? It is truly delusional of Democrats to think that she’s “fundamentally honest”.
Hard to call something a “smear” when it doesn’t actually leave a smear.
Not much has stuck to Obama. And while I wouldn’t call Obama “fundamentally honest” either, his career has been free of major scandal. Politicians have the stink of scandal around them because they are actually scandalous.
The real issue with the Clintons is that they think the rules don’t apply to them and they’ve got an awful lot of enablers who insist it’s all just peachy.
And you’re going to give us an actual, factual example any day now, aren’t you? :rolleyes:
It’s time to drop the desperate insinuations before you embarrass yourself any further. Put up or shut up, okay?
Let’s start with the email, since Obama’s own IG said it was not allowed, nor was it secure, and also broke the rules on records retention.
Those are just a couple of the rules that apparently don’t apply to Clinton.
And you’re stopping there, too. Yes, we know how desperately you need that to *be *something. But it just isn’t, is it?
Go ahead. Tell us more. And don’t forget to draw comparisons to your own party’s nominee, okay? :rolleyes:
Gary Johnson? Gary Johnson is ten times more honest and moral than Clinton.
addy done seen the Light, had his “Come to Johnson” moment!
ANd don’t worry. I won’t Nader you. If the race in Florida is close I’ll vote for Clinton.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire, huh? Problem is, Republicans have been running around with smoke machines pointed in the Clintons’ direction for 25 years. If there’s a ‘boy crying wolf’ effect, they only have themselves to blame.
When it comes to public figures, yes, where there’s smoke there’s fire. And court standards of innocence and guilt don’t apply to people aspiring to a political career. Those people have to prove they are honest, we don’t have to prove they are liars. And if they withhold information that is legitimately requested by activist groups or the media, then they are presumed guilty, and rightfully so.
See: Mitt Romney, tax returns. Harry Reid’s no idiot. He knew he could make outrageous claims about Romney’s taxes, because the fact he wouldn’t release the returns going back enough years was proof of guilt in the public’s mind. And Clinton’s hiding a hell of a lot more than Romney did. Romney didn’t violate any laws. Clinton did. Whether or not it rises to the level or a prosecutable offense is above my paygrade. Whether or not she violated the law is clear. The Federal Records Act says it’s a felony to destroy federal records. The State Dept. IG busted her on that, hard.
So they must disprove every whackjob conspiracy theory ever thrown at them or they look guilty. That’s the thrust of your argument. Nevermind the difficulty of having to prove an avalanche of negatives.
And it turns out that strategy has been wildly successful for the Republicans. You (and many millions of others) believe that Hillary is corrupt, sans any actual finding of guilt of anything. You believe it, so it must be.
No, sometimes there’s just a smoke generator. And you know which way the evidence points.
The question is why you persist in trying to spread all this bullshit and innuendo and insinuation. What does it say about the character of a person who does that?
When he’s sober.
Aren’t you the guy who kept telling us how wonderful Christie, then Jindal, then Kasich would be as candidates, and would simply wipe the floor with Clinton?
One doesn’t have to disprove the ridiculous. Obama is not a Muslim and Clinton did not have Vince Foster killed. But the birth certificate thing was actually legitimate, at least until Obama released it. If he had refused to release it, then people rightly would have assumed he was hiding something. Why refuse to release your birth certificate? Likewise, why refuse to release all of your work-related emails?
So no politician is guilty unless proven so in a court of law? I know you don’t believe that. And Clinton has been proven guilty to an extent greater than 99% of politicians. The IG report flatly says she broke the law.
Kasich is still awesome, he just didn’t win.
A guy who couldn’t even come close to beating Trump cannot be awesome. You do get that, don’t you?
:rolleyes:
When I say “legitimate” I mean “an accusation that can easily be proved or disproved”. Clinton can’t prove that she DIDN’T kill Vince Foster, but Obama can definitely prove he was born in the US. Refusal to do so would have been proof of guilt because it’s so easy to disprove.
Likewise, Clinton could easily disprove most of the allegations against her. Some are patently ridiculous, but others are pretty easy. She doesn’t disprove them because she can’t. She won’t release her Wall Street speeches because she has something to hide. It’s entirely reasonable for voters to assume that.