Hillary arrived on the national stage a few years after the FCC eliminated the fairness doctrine and at about the same time Rush Limbaugh gained a national audience. Demonizing the Clintons was an easy way for him to fill up air time which he did for about a decade. His model worked, he gained listeners and imitators all equally or even more eager for red meat gossip and rumor mongering. Weeks before Bill was elected to his second term Fox news was launched. In a way Hillary (and Bill) are “patient zero” for the alternative facts epidemic our country now faces.
I’ve never listened to Rush, all I need to do is watch her speak and it makes my skin crawl.
I’m sure.
I was going to suggest that the way she has trashed the reputations of the women who accused her husband certainly counts as “evil” by today’s standards, but then Trump has done the best he can to trash his accusers too. Does being less competent at it make Trump a lesser evil?
What about the women he ACTUALLY assaulted?
Yea, he’s evil.
As a general rule, stupid evil is simply more brutal. For instance, Il Douche does not attempt complex and nuanced rationalizations, he simply lies and dares you not to believe. He doesn’t attempt to carve an argument about demographics or election law, he just tells you that three million illegal voters voted for HRC. He doesn’t bandy legal arguments about, he simply says he’s been proven innocent.
It has the virtue of simplicity, so that’s one.
"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” — Conservative commenator P. J. O’Rourke
Even if you hate everything Hillary Clinton stands for, it is nearly inconceivable that she would have done as much damage to the reputation of the United States in an entire term as Trump has managed in eleven months. And even if the Republican-dominated 115th Congress had spent all of its collective effort blocking her legislative agenda, it would still have produced no less than it has to date. The people who insist that Trump is “still better than Hillary” are living in some kind of a Lovecraftian fantasy world where Hillary Clinton is actually a Cthulhoid Old One capable of consuming human souls by the millions while bringing a fury of Elder Gods through interdimensional portals. And besides, we know who the real Cthulhu is in the 2016 race.
Stranger
A lack of competence might be okay in some situations. But when that lack of competence is combined with access to nuclear weapons, it becomes dangerous. Even if you accept the worst rumors about Clinton, you know she’d never kill a billion people by accident. With Trump, you worry that he might.
The email thing was “treason”, and if a lower level government employee or military officer did the same thing, they’d be thrown in prison for a long time. Hillary only got away with it because she’s powerful/privileged.
At least, that’s the line I’ve heard multiple times. I don’t buy it, but it’s kinda hard to debunk in an ironclad way.
You point out that the one or two cases, the guilty party was trying to give the classified information to a hostile power.
Actual espionage, not carelessness.
Not hard to debunk treason allegations for use of a private email server. Maybe smart, maybe dumb, but not treason.
I don’t. I was far more worried about HRC getting us into a billion-casualty war than Trump.
And now…?
Treason is explicitly defined in the United States Code, and carelessly handling data that should be unclassified does not meet the intent in any way, shape, or form. Clinton was irresponsible and in violation of regulations on handling official government communications, but there is zero evidence that it was done to avoid circumspection or aid a hostile foreign power.
On the other hand, communicating with agents of foreign powers without disclosure to influence an election and lying about the same…
Stranger
Interesting. Direct quotes of her trashing these women’s reputations, please.
Exactly. Not even close. I wish people would stop doing that.
“Foreign powers” are not necessarily enemies. It would be a difficult legal argument to prove that Russia meets the definition of “enemy” as it relates to treason. But we’ve had this discussion before, and there is probably no value in repeating it.
Who gives a shit about everyone else’s casualties? MAGA!
I think each candidate posed different risks of getting us involved in wars. HRC wanted to impose a no-fly-zone over Syria, possibly bringing us into conflict with Russia. DJT wanted to more aggressively prosecute the war against ISIS. He has been quite confrontational with North Korea. There’s a chance we end up in a war with them. I’m not sure how HRC would have handled North Korea. She probably wouldn’t have tweeted taunts and threats, but I don’t know if her actual actions would have been more or less aggressive.
On phone, can’t quote properly. Read here: Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton responded to husband’s accusers - The Washington Post
Trump certainly solved the problem of conflict with Russia. Knuckling under isn’t exactly optimal.
Where the fuck do you get “probably”? At least admit she’s an adult with the emotional control and maturity of an an adult.