# Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523 "2016-05-24T04:00:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/61 "2016-05-24T18:54:20Z")
Yeesh. Damuri is obviously giving his impression of why a Liberal would object to Clinton. Pretending he is showing off his mind reading skills of all Liberals is so fucking silly. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/62 "2016-05-24T18:54:32Z")
I think the board’s conservatives should stop talking about what liberals think just as soon as the board’s liberals stop talking about what conservatives think. Of course most of the board would then grind pretty much to a halt, but still… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/63 "2016-05-24T18:56:12Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > So I read a response to this that basically rejects the premise entirely. Let’s take it one by one: > > [ Excellent ! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/64 "2016-05-24T18:56:43Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I think the board’s conservatives should stop talking about what liberals think just as soon as the board’s liberals stop talking about what conservatives think. > > Of course most of the board would then grind pretty much to a halt, but still… a generic “They do it _toooo_!!!” whine is the best you can come up with? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/65 "2016-05-24T19:21:04Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > So, yes, Hillary Clinton is knee deep in money from big corporate donors. > > And, yes, that makes Hillary Clinton just as sleezy as any other politician. > > But that’s the point; she’s not beset by scandals or lies or corruption. She’s about on par with the stereotypical politician lampooned on the Simpsosn. Sounds like the two of us are pretty much in agreement about politicians in general and Hillary Clinton in particular. > [@JohnT](#): > > It’s bizarre that one was chosen by ITR as evidence of how groups bought the Clintons - the NRF donates far greater sums to Repubs than to Dems… but, apparently, it’s only the $200k that is raised by HRC that’s corrupt (out of $400k in Democrat donations total over 24 years), not the $2 million given to Repubs in the same time frame. I never said that money given by the NRF to Republicans wasn’t evidence of corruption. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/66 "2016-05-24T19:36:43Z")
So why is their giving money for Hillary worth noting? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/67 "2016-05-24T20:17:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > a generic “They do it _toooo_!!!” whine is the best you can come up with? I can’t say it was the best, but it was easily the most obvious. If it ain’t wrong for you to do it then it ain’t wrong for us to do it. N’est-ce pas? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/68 "2016-05-24T20:21:32Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I can’t say it was the best, but it was easily the most obvious. If it ain’t wrong for you to do it then it ain’t wrong for us to do it. N’est-ce pas? For this approach to be honestly effective, you would include a link to a thread where what you claim actually happens. Just saying a stock “They do it _tooo_!!” in response without actually showing it just doesn’t cut it any more-sorry. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/69 "2016-05-24T20:30:45Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I think the board’s conservatives should stop talking about what liberals think just as soon as the board’s liberals stop talking about what conservatives think. > > Of course most of the board would then grind pretty much to a halt, but still… Whatever happened to leading by example? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/70 "2016-05-24T21:33:23Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > So why is their giving money for Hillary worth noting? Because Hillary is the topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/71 "2016-05-24T21:43:37Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Because Hillary is the topic of this thread. Yeah, but there’s no meat to the accusations unless you can show tit-for-tat. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/72 "2016-05-24T21:46:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Because Hillary is the topic of this thread. No, “Hillary Clinton’s lies and scandals” is the topic of this thread. How does her receiving $200k from an organization that has given 10X that amount to her opposition amount to a scandal or a lie? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/73 "2016-05-24T22:39:27Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > On what charges? They don’t need charges! This is 'Murica! ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/74 "2016-05-24T23:23:15Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Gay marriage > Yes, its true that Clinton changed her mind on this, but if you’re around long enough, you will have changed your mind on it too. {snip}So I think that as she got to know gay people, saw them represented in the media and other places, she, like most of America, realized gays were not the evil perverts that the religious right painted them as. People can change with new information, she didn’t lie I didn’t find changing one’s mind the issue here. You know she changed her mind, I know it, most know it, but does Hillary know it? She could have easily clarified that her position has evolved, and only within the last few years has she changed her mind, and we’ll pretend she didn’t change her mind because now, politically, many more Americans are now in favor of it than at any other time. But according to Hillary, she states she didn’t change her mind. The video clips show in 2002 she opposed NY state same sex marriage. In 2004, she stated marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman. In 2010 she said she will not support same sex marriage, but civil unions. Only in 2013, she states, she supports lesbians and gay couples right to marry. When Terry Gross of NPR (1:09 mark) asked clarification from Hillary that her position has changed on gay marriage or that she had changed her mind, Hillary said she was playing with her words. When Gross tried again to get through to her, Hillary said, you are trying to get me to say that I once was opposed, but now I’m for gay marriage and also doing it for political reasons, and that is flat wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/75 "2016-05-24T23:29:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In any case, in most of the criticism of Clinton here on this board, I hardly see any mention of her [anti 1st amendment position](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/04/21/hillary-clintons-history-with-video-games-and-the-rise-of-political-geek-cred/)that she took with regard to violent video games. That alone was a deal breaker for me. > > > [@](#): > > > > “We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography,” Clinton said while promoting the Family Entertainment Protection Act, legislation that would have criminalized the sale of games rated “Mature” or “Adults Only” to minors. “If you put it just really simply, these violent video games are stealing the innocence of our children – and it is certainly making the job of being a parent even more difficult,” she said. > > If she believed this, then she was wrong - and if she didn’t, then she was pandering. Both are bad. Now that gaming is more mainstream, not a peep. That’s not a principled position. I’m a video game developer and (I like to think) a staunch 1st amendment supporter, and I don’t find that to be troublesome from a 1st amendment perspective at all. There’s a WORLD of difference between “speech X should be illegal” and “speech X should be illegal _to children_”. Pornography being illegal: bad. Pornography being not generally available to children? Perfectly fine. Now, do violent video games fall on the worth-restricting-to-children side of the line? In sufficiently extreme cases, sure. In fact, I think it makes a lot more sense to restrict extreme violence along with graphic sex than it does to have a boobs=horrible murder=fine attitude, as seems to be common. Now, did Clinton really believe that? And is it a sign of dishonesty for her to no longer be espousing that position? Meh. Whatever. She might well still think that that’s how it really should be, but also realize that it’s a politically hopeless fight so she has given up to focus on issues where she might actually make traction. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s just common sense. Or it might have been 100% pure pandering. It’s hard for us to know as outside observers. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/76 "2016-05-24T23:48:10Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m a video game developer and (I like to think) a staunch 1st amendment supporter, and I don’t find that to be troublesome from a 1st amendment perspective at all. There’s a WORLD of difference between “speech X should be illegal” and “speech X should be illegal _to children_”. Pornography being illegal: bad. Pornography being not generally available to children? Perfectly fine. I’m an avid gamer and at the time, this was a deal breaker for me. Time hasn’t changed my view. And SCOTUS did actually weigh in on the issue. [They agreed with me.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n) > [@](#): > > Now, did Clinton really believe that? And is it a sign of dishonesty for her to no longer be espousing that position? Meh. Whatever. She might well still think that that’s how it really should be, but also realize that it’s a politically hopeless fight so she has given up to focus on issues where she might actually make traction. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s just common sense. > > Or it might have been 100% pure pandering. It’s hard for us to know as outside observers. I don’t think this is necessarily dishonest - she could have truly believed her opposition to violent video games, or she could have been pandering. Either way is bad and for supporters of the 1st amendment should be negative mark against her. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/77 "2016-05-24T23:56:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m an avid gamer and at the time, this was a deal breaker for me. Time hasn’t changed my view. > > And SCOTUS did actually weigh in on the issue. [They agreed with me.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n) > I don’t think this is necessarily dishonest - she could have truly believed her opposition to violent video games, or she could have been pandering. Either way is bad and for supporters of the 1st amendment should be negative mark against her. How is such a law different from the MPAA issuing R ratings for violence, and that being enforced? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/78 "2016-05-25T00:03:44Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > How is such a law different from the MPAA issuing R ratings for violence, and that being enforced? MPAA doesn’t carry the force of law. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/79 "2016-05-25T00:04:05Z")
Behold, the danger of common sense. It makes perfect common sense to believe that flagrantly violent video games will encourage actual violence. Can’t help but cross your mind when you see the innocent joy of a growing boy that just disemboweled the enemy. _Of course_ you think that. I’d be more surprised if you didn’t! But best I can tell, it just ain’t so. I myself have logged more than fifty hours on _Dark Souls_ and have yet to slaughter a fire-chucking slime mold. Maybe sixty hours. They have things on there that say how much time, but they don’t work. Also, the controllers are delicate and flimsy, and fall apart under the merest impact. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/80 "2016-05-25T00:19:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > MPAA doesn’t carry the force of law. That’s a fair point. I’m not saying I think Hillary was _right_ to support that law, or that I would support it myself. But I think given the pre-existing precedent for treating children differently when it comes to the first amendment (pornography), it doesn’t register very high for me on the better-protect-the-first-amendment scale. It certainly doesn’t seem like the action of someone who is just itching to get in there and impose though crimes. For instance, compare here quote to this from Donald Trump: “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way.” That’s not really proposing anything specific, so it’s hard to claim that it’s meaningfully violating the first amendment. But the implications of the mind that would hold that position are far scarier to me than someone going overboard trying to protect children from violent imagery. (Using that as an example of a comment that I DO find disturbing from a first amendment perspective, not just trying to say that Trump is worse.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=5)