Shooting the messenger is not being objective.
Many times, like in the last cite, the cites used by Media Matters are coming from FOX, the mainstream media and the reports cited (links to video of the sources and reports in the dates at the end of the cites they use).
I have to add that the reason why I go for Media Matters is that they do cite what they report, and like Nate Silver I do check how good a source is constantly. So far the MM experts that they consult in controversial matters do get it right regarding what will take place on the courts and with other issues.
QFT ^
If every out-and-out Facebook Lie posted or forwarded about her over the past 25 years was a nickle, she’d never need a fund raiser ever.
(Just on the ones that I’ve seen that made me sick so I closed the window, at a nickle per, she’d be just over the poverty line.)
Some of them are such cheap shots that I’d want her to win just to stick something back up the ass of those photo-shop crews.
I guess it’s a good strategy to throw a bunch of shit against the wall to see what sticks, and even if nothing does, the wall still smells like shit. My otherwise intelligent coworker who referred me to the first linked page in the OP stated that even if only one of those allegations are true, then she is unfit to be president. That she has too much bad around her.
For some reason there is a scene from A&E’s Intervention that has stuck with me… There was an older gentleman who was “addicted” to falling for these online/e-mail Nigerian-prince type scams. In this scene his son was questioning him about it, and the guy said “well, they all can’t be scams!”. That sort of mentality when we really want to believe something is true, makes us susceptible to the machine-gun fire of insinuation and can change our perspective of someone, even though each case could be proven false. It’s the constant accusations that paint the picture of her, not the actual truth behind the accusations.
That’s a lazy argument though. A lot of that stuff is true, but none of it seems disqualifying to me. Just a lot of crap to take into account when making your choice.
Not really. Unlike Republican reality, real reality has shades of grey. The “looting” was a matter of basic misunderstanding of which items were personal gifts to the Clintons and which were gifts to the White House itself. It wasn’t a matter of Bill and Hill hiring 2 Men and a Truck to back up to the White House on Jan 20, 2001 and loading up in secret.
Good cite. IT looks like rather than the Clintons just making off with stuff, it was their usual unwillingness to accurately account for their actions. You’d think people with their legal education and experience would be more meticulous, but that’s why they are often accused of believing the rules don’t apply to them.
I think the White House staff had some issues with maintaining the inventory of items and noting which were personal gifts and which were not. For those cases where the Clintons took items belonging to the White House, they either returned the items or paid for them.
Then why was this more of an issue for them than past administrations or the GWB administration? Is this likely to be an issue when Obama leaves office? I think not. i’m sure there might be an item or two that raises eyebrows, I too remembered the Nancy Reagan gifts. But it does appear that other administrations were more careful.
And that’s the goal isn’t it? To have a president who’s done nothing to be disqualified from the job, not to have been convicted of anything. Once a candidate has met that high standard we should just give them the job and not waste time on the messy election process.
The Clintons were pikers compared to the Reagans. From the previous cite:
The Reagans repaid their donors, and the clintons are now richer than the Kennedys or Roosevelts, almost entirely do to income earned from corporations and governments who want to influence the US government.
What I remember from that was Maureen Reagan laughing at the whole “scandal” and saying “You should see what WE hauled out of there!”
After Papa Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger and the rest of the Iran-Contra stooges – guys who actually subverted the entire foreign policy process and the Constitution, as opposed to cheating on taxes and then deciding not to return to the United States when the plea agreement worked out is subsequently reneged on by a Republican-appointed judge – on the way out the door, the Democrats still get a pass on this for another twenty years at least.
The GOP has been running against Hilary ever since G W Bush won the 2000 election. It’s been 16 years now. It no longer matters what she does or doesn’t do. If she does or doesn’t do anything, the GOP will criticise it.
Hey, Rush and Faux news have a lot of airtime to fill, you know?
No, ever since she became FLOTUS in 1993. The cottage industry of anti-Hillary books started when Bill was POTUS.
Time for a re-release of The Clinton Chronicles, is it? No doubt the Arkansas Project is entering a renaissance. Ken Starr is still available, too.
I was looking at the list trying to find something from the '90s that was clearly directed at Hillary alone, and clicked on the author of Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, only to learn that she was a 9/11 victim. :eek:
Hillary’s biggest problem is her own attitude. The way she’s responsed to, well, each and every one of these scandals, it’s clear she thinks she should be above reproach.
What difference does Benghazi make? It makes a difference because terrorists killed our ambassador, and you reacted by telling a bald-faced lie that tried to shift the blame to an entirely-unrelated person. (And yes, the investigations made it clear that the State Department suspected an organized attack from the very beginning. They were lying when they blamed the movie.)
Why should we care about the e-mails? Because you were keeping sensitive government secrets on an unsecure server in your home, with less protection than most guys have on their porn stashes. A lesser person would be sitting in a federal prison by now. And, BTW, Robert Gates has said her server was almost certainly hacked, perhaps multiple times by multiple parties. (Russia, China, and Iran have been accused, but in reality even allies spy on each other, so the list could easily include the UK, Germany, France, and Israel.)
She’s been caught in so many lies, she would seem to be one of those people who tell lies as a default response. You probably know people like this. And you hate them.
Plus, there have been numerous money-related scandals, from Travelgate up to the Clinton Foundation and her speaking fees today. It’s clear that she’ll do anything to make a buck. She’s taken money from everyone from Wall Street to Saudi Arabia. How do we know who she owes favors to?
Basically, by now we’ve seen enough of Hillary to make an informed judgement on her character. And that judgement is that she’s dishonest & greedy.
See post #11.
See post #17.
See post #17.