# Why the apathy over negitve things Hillary Clinton's done? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 22, 2016, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603 "2016-08-22T04:04:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/141 "2016-08-23T08:56:46Z")
> [@Rugose\_Partly\_Squamous](#): > > I can only answer from the perspective of the foreigner: She’s belligerent, and stand a good chance of causing the already fragile nature of international peace to deteriorate further… > > …Lastly: English is not my native language. I apologize for any miscommunication caused by my unsteady grasp of it. Further, I am not, nor have I ever been, in America, and so my view is inherently that of an outsider, keeping an eye on the news, largely in order to know when to duck. The word from Serbia! Read up on _[Why Serbia is Strengthening its Alliance with Russia](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-ramani/why-russia-is-tightening-_b_9218306.html)_. You really need to learn more about how the US works. However, I can see why you might prefer the Presidential Candidate backed by your very powerful & scary neighbor. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/142 "2016-08-23T10:27:32Z")
> [@AngelSoft](#): > > The shit that gets me is when the right utterly CONDEMNS her for something someone on their side did as well. And if it gets pointed out, they excuse their guy’s actions left and right but that same excuse doesn’t apply to Hillary. Like voting for the war in Iraq. Drumpf’s [interview on 60 Minutes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/17/trump-excuses-mike-pences-iraq-war-vote-but-slams-hillary-clinton-for-voting-the-same-way/) sums it up. > > And I saw another interview, which for the life of me I can not track down again, with some…guy lol All I remember is he was African American. And he’s basically saying that the fact that Bill Clinton had an affair makes Hillary a worse person that Drumpf, who actually had affairs himself. Because, well the bible says people give in to temptations. Or something along those lines. Basically my point is, they so very obviously hold her to some different standard than their own party members, it’s hard to take anything they say seriously as it just comes off as them hating Hillary because she’s Hillary. AngleSoft, you should be aware that if you’re going to install the ‘drumpf’ browser extension it has the unfortunate effect of altering the text inside quote tags. That can get you in trouble due to the rule about not altering text inside quote boxes. I won’t warn you for this for two reasons. First, you’re not altering another posters words. In this case, you’ve simply altered a quote from an outside source. Not ideal, but not as bad as altering another posters text. Second, you’re not habitual about it. Note, though, that further appearances of this may lead to warnings and other sanctions in the future. Please be aware of the issue this browser extension causes. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/143 "2016-08-23T11:08:36Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > That was specifically referring to OBL though. There’s so much out there about Obama and drone strikes. … No. It was in reference to your claim about “candidate Obama talking about respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty” and how “after he became POTUS somebody sat him down and told him what was really going on there.” Candidate Obama believed that there were terrorists hiding out in Pakistan and promised that Pakistan’s sovereignty would not stop him from acting against high-value terrorist targets there on the basis of high value intelligence. If you have some quotes from candidate Obama about how he would not pursue high-value targets, or specifically how he would not use drones to do so (since that is what you are specifically talking about) please offer them up. In fact [here](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/05/john-fleming/should-obama-apologize-policy-shift-drone-strikes-/) is a Politifact evaluation of the claim - made by members of the GOP in 2011 - that Obama had flip-flopped on the use of drones: > [@](#): > > did Obama – as Fleming suggests – do a 180 on drone attacks? > > We see no evidence of it. > > A White House spokesman told us that candidate Obama hadn’t criticized drone attacks. None of the 500-plus campaign promises we have been tracking dealt with drones. In Google and Nexis searches, we found no criticism of drone attacks by Obama or his campaign aides. > > F. Whitten Peters – a Washington attorney who, as a supporter unaffiliated with the campaign, co-authored an Oct. 20, 2008, op-ed praising Obama’s military and counter-terrorism agenda – said he didn’t recall hearing any criticism from the campaign about the drone program. And a foreign policy scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation said he didn’t remember any either. … > > … In the meantime, we found two pieces of evidence that suggested that candidate Obama was comfortable with targeting terrorists for assassination and with drones. … > > … We rate Fleming’s statement False _This_ is the “so much out there about Obama and drone strikes.” A disproven false accusation that you likely honestly remember as if it was factual, despite its being pants on fire untrue. This hijack is actually very pertinent to the op. It illustrates how baseless accusations get made by the opposition and how despite their lack of any factual baseless people remember the accusations as if what the allege are something that occurred. That is the crux of 99% of “all the negative things that Clinton has done.” They are at best false memories created by decades of dedicated oppo false accusations. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/144 "2016-08-23T11:54:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You recite that as if it’s liturgy. You’re wrong. You have no facts. I have the best facts! It is a fact that the Clinton foundation either gets a failing grade or no assessment at all from many charity watch websites. The Clinton foundation has already just said they won’t accept overseas donations if Clinton becomes the President because of potential conflict of interest. So if thats a conflict of interest then surely accepting donations from foreign governments while secretary of state is also a conflict of interest? You know you can still be a Clinton supporter while thinking a bunch of stuff she has done is slimy or at least poor ethical judgement and I put myself in that camp. Still better than Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/145 "2016-08-23T13:46:26Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > I remember watching the lead in to a Fox News program which basically was, “People aren’t taking her email fiasco seriously…WHY? PEOPLE WE NEED TO TAKE WHAT SHE DID WITH HER EMAILS SERIOUSLY” I apologize if this has been explained upthread, but I only just came in on this discussion and have not read all three pages. Could someone please explain what the scandal exactly **is** about Hillary’s emails? All I’ve been able to glean from all the right wing harrumphing is that Hillary was receiving classified emails on a private server when she should have been receiving them on a different server. Lemme put it to you this way. Why should I care? From what I can tell, it gives the _appearance_ of corruption. Okay, but are there any emails indicating corruption? Perhaps something like: "Dear Clinton Foundation Fatcat Contributor, I would be happy to put your nephew on the Committee for Sleazy Federal Pork Projects but the price you quoted me is too low. The position will cost you approximately twice as much, and you must also turn over your purebred Siberian Husky Snowball for sacrifice at the next Winter Solstice. However, if you were willing to provide a human infant to offer to our Dark Lord Satan, (I understand your nephew’s wife is expecting in November?) you could keep all your money, and your little dog too. Let me know what you decide. Love and Kisses, Hillary Rodham-Clinton." Otherwise, why should I take the whole email thing SERIOUSLY?!! Really, I’d like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/146 "2016-08-23T14:14:49Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > There are two email issues that the opposition tries to link. > > The first is the use of a private email account - regardless of whether it was a private server or a commercial server; whether it was in the someone’s office or someone’s basement. It was not illegal. It was not against State Department rules at the time. Apparently she should have asked permission but the idea that the top person in the department would be denied an admin process is unlikely but she didn’t get permission. > > Classified material on an unclassified system is a second and separate issue. Classified information should only be on accredited systems. Having that information on an unclassified server is the same problem whether it was at Google, AOL, someone’s basement or the unclassified network in the state department. > > Government agencies have records retention policies; she (or her staff) did not comply with those. To the extent she sent from her personal account to a state department account, those should have been available in a government system but harder to find. > > The classified messages are complicated by the fact that different agencies have different rules and different classification for information. One agency might only consider the content while another might consider the capability to gather information that is revealed. > > There are rules that classified material should be marked in a specific way and there were no classified emails found on her server with proper markings. There were some with partial markings and some with no markings that should have had them. > > Those are subtle distinctions from the perspective of criminal prosecution but valid for evaluating judgement and knowledge. They would keep me from voting for her if there were a viable alternative. Okay, that explains the whole email thing. Thank you. Do I care? No. Does anybody else? ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/147 "2016-08-23T14:23:05Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > Still waiting to hear which felonies Hillary has been convicted of (or charged with)… > > OP - I think several people here have listed the main “scandals” and some high level information on them. Could you come back with specific questions on any that give you concern? The WikiLeaks stuff is when I started to get concerned… and her giving DWS a safety net. Also… I heard a tape recording of her talking about a rape case where the evidence was tampered with by the cops and benefited her case. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/148 "2016-08-23T14:32:54Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > The WikiLeaks stuff is when I started to get concerned… and her giving DWS a safety net. > > Also… I heard a tape recording of her talking about a rape case where the evidence was tampered with by the cops and benefited her case. And just talking about it in a callus way. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/149 "2016-08-23T15:19:21Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > No, not really. That 89 percent included travel and salary expenses for their own programs which are usually regarded as “admin” costs not charitable giving when rating other charities. Here’s another sites assessment: > [http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/clinton-foundation-aka-bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655](http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/clinton-foundation-aka-bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655) The Clinton Foundation, though, isn’t a “charitable giving” foundation; they are themselves a charity, mostly operating their programs themselves rather than giving money to other people’s programs. The very assessment to which you link says they meet all of the standards in fund-raising and program expenses; the standards they did not meet were 1) the chairman of the board was compensated as an employee; 2) the board did not have a written policy for assessing effectiveness; and 3) the board had not completed a written assessment of their effectiveness. That’s it; those are the ONLY standards not met. The standard that requires a charity to spend at least 65% of its money on program activities? Yep, your own link says they did. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/150 "2016-08-23T15:51:01Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > Also… I heard a tape recording of her talking about a rape case where the evidence was tampered with by the cops and benefited her case. Snopes has an article about this - it includes the audio > **[Did Hillary Clinton Free a Child Rapist?](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/)** > > Hillary Clinton's role in a 40-year-old rape case became the focal point of a viral meme in 2016, but the claims made about it were mostly inaccurate. > [@Snopes article](#): > > The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as “terrible.” She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about “knowing that the defendant was guilty” (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant’s favor (i.e., observing that the defendant’s passing a polygraph test had “forever destroyed her faith” in that technology): She was chuckling about the irony of the case being such a mess that things which might have helped the prosecution ended up helping the defense. Maybe it sounds callous to your ears in retrospect, but the Prosecution offered her client a deal where he pled guilty to a lesser charge. The Defendent pled guilty and might have gotten five years in prison, but the judge suspended the prison sentence, which is no one else’s fault. That happens today, too, after all, and back in 1975 people were more callous about rape, in general, than they are today. In short - Hillary fulfilled her obligation to her client to the best of her abilities. Tone policing an interview she gave about it, thirty years ago, is seriously weak sauce. You really need to broaden your news sources, MyFootsZZZ. ---
**Author:** ![Rugose\_Partly\_Squamous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Rugose\_Partly\_Squamous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rugose_Partly_Squamous)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/151 "2016-08-23T16:25:50Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I won’t comment on your Clinton claims, as I do not know about them. I do think it’s weird that you say this doesn’t differ from Obama, and Obama is fairly well-liked abroad. > > I will, however, point out that the above is a misunderstanding of how the U.S. works. The checks and balances don’t really work very well on the military level. Sure, only Congress can declare war. But the president is Command-in-Chief, and can do a lot of things. He has unilateral power to launch nukes, for one thing. > > I really don’t think an authoritarian like Trump will go quietly into the night, either. He has shown no propriety at all. And there’s just too much stuff held in place by propriety. For example, he has basically infinite pardoning power for anything federal. > > I think that, as an outsider, you underestimate the power of the President. We’ve had presidents who completely defied the Supreme Court when they told him something was not allowed. > > At least Clinton has to put up a veneer of propriety. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Like Trump wouldn’t use them? :dubious: > > Along with 77 other senators and about 300 Representatives. The war that \*GWB \*conned Congress into supporting.:rolleyes: > > You can’t say Trump voted for it- since he couldn’t having never held Office. But he did support the war before it started: > [Donald Trump and the Iraq War - FactCheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/) > > _Sanctions?_ It is to laff: > > \*The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the Iraqi Republic. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,… > \* > > Do you know who was president in 19fucking90? George Herbert Walker Bush. Do you know who imposed those sanctions? **UN Security Council.** > Do you know who wasnt in national politics in 1990? Guess. Hint- Her initials are HRC. > > NAFTA? You know who brought NAFTA in? U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Hillary never even voted on it. Her support has gone back and forth: > > _At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Clinton said, “NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that’s why I call for a trade timeout.”_ > You know what? Hilary didnt assassinate Archduke Ferdinand either. :rolleyes: > [@Chihuahua](#): > > I like how they blame Hillary for sanctions on Iraq, but not, you know… _Saddam_. > > Like Iraq was just sitting there minding its own buisiness. Like everyone forgets how Saddam admitted he wanted us to think he had chemical weapons, which has to be the greatest mis calculation of all time. But nope, its all Hillary’s fault. 100%. > > And UNICEF says a bunch of Iraqi children died? Who gives a flying fuck? We have a right to decide who we do - and don’t - trade with. We do not have any moral obligation to help people in other countries, especially those our enemies. > > I also hope she drone strikes twice as many people as Obama. Saddam was _hanged_. That’s as much blame as you can levy on a person, surely. The sliver of blame I ascribe to Hillary is far from being worthy of capital punishment. Only that she shouldn’t be president. And if you don’t give a flying fuck about the children of Iraq, then fine. If you think drone strikes are a brilliant idea, then by all means, vote Hillary with a clean conscience. I merely wanted to explain the view from abroad where people disagree with your valuation of their lives. Oh, and also, let me just repeat something since people seem to have ignored the bit of my post where I wrote it first: I do not support Donald Trump. I think he’s an idiot, much like most of the planet. I am not saying Trump wouldn’t do the things that Hillary has done, either. Hillary is, I think, a poor choice to be president, completely independent of Trump. You have, in fact, _two_ poor choices for president. But the question was about Hillary and so, that is what I answered. If you want to know what people abroad think of Trump it is “They aren’t going to elect this idiot for president, are they? Are they?” There. Much simpler. Though he’s a little less despised mostly, I wager, because when they quote him they take the time to translate his rants into grammatically correct sentences that bear some resemblance to eloquence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/152 "2016-08-23T16:42:29Z")
> [@Rugose\_Partly\_Squamous](#): > > Saddam was _hanged_. That’s as much blame as you can levy on a person, surely. The sliver of blame I ascribe to Hillary is far from being worthy of capital punishment. Only that she shouldn’t be president. > . Let me make this perfectly clear: \*\* Hillary Rodham Clinton had nothing whatsoever to do with imposing the sanctions on Iraq. \*\* It was George Herbert Walker Bush and the UN Security Council. So not only is there not a _sliver_, there’s not a iota. ---
**Author:** ![AngelSoft](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angelsoft/32/440_2.png) [@AngelSoft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AngelSoft)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/153 "2016-08-23T16:45:14Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > AngleSoft, you should be aware that if you’re going to install the ‘drumpf’ browser extension it has the unfortunate effect of altering the text inside quote tags. That can get you in trouble due to the rule about not altering text inside quote boxes. > > I won’t warn you for this for two reasons. First, you’re not altering another posters words. In this case, you’ve simply altered a quote from an outside source. Not ideal, but not as bad as altering another posters text. Second, you’re not habitual about it. > > Note, though, that further appearances of this may lead to warnings and other sanctions in the future. Please be aware of the issue this browser extension causes. Ahh geez I’m sorry. I thought I got them all. I need to just take that thing off lol Thanks for the heads up. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/154 "2016-08-23T16:49:57Z")
> [@Rugose\_Partly\_Squamous](#): > > Saddam was hanged. That’s as much blame as you can levy on a person, surely. The sliver of blame I ascribe to Hillary is far from being worthy of capital punishment. Only that she shouldn’t be president. > > And if you don’t give a flying fuck about the children of Iraq, then fine. If you think drone strikes are a brilliant idea, then by all means, vote Hillary with a clean conscience. I merely wanted to explain the view from abroad where people disagree with your valuation of their lives. I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment of Hillary, but as a non-American, you should understand that that’s not really the sort of concern the OP is asking about in this thread. He’s asking about all the bullshit rumors that follow her and her husband. If you want to have a substantive discussion of Hillary’s policies, you might get a better response in the Hillary’s General Election thread. I will say this - the drone program is a military weapon. The American President is the Commander in Chief of our military. Being willing to use our military weapons does not disqualify someone from being our Commander in Chief, even if we disagree about the manner in which those weapons are deployed. Even Donald Trump’s inane questions about using nukes don’t disqualify him from being president. All our presidents, as Commander in Chief, have to be prepared to use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances. It is part of the American President’s duty to defend the United States. In Trump’s case, it’s his ignorance about why we don’t pre-emptively deploy nukes to achieve nebulous military goals that’s the problem. Americans have far worse weapons than drones at our disposal. You should be far more concerned about the idiot who wants to drop nuclear weapons with the same ease as with we deploy our drones. > [@Rugose](#): > > Though he’s a little less despised mostly, I wager, because when they quote him they take the time to translate his rants into grammatically correct sentences that bear some resemblance to eloquence. Hah - I hadn’t considered that Trump probably sounds more presidential in translation. That’s unfortunate. Cleaning up his sentence structure doesn’t really convey the full Trump experience. But this is an opportunity to compliment you on your own command of English, Rugose. Your fluency needs no apology. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/155 "2016-08-23T16:56:39Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > You really need to broaden your news sources, MyFootsZZZ. I didn’t hear that recording through the news, someone must have sent it to me. It did bother me, but whatever. I read this entire thread. I learned a lot. What news sources do people here find trustworthy? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/156 "2016-08-23T17:02:54Z")
> [@Rugose\_Partly\_Squamous](#): > > She voted for the war in Iraq. Victoria Nuland and the disaster that broke Ukraine in three parts was either her doing or, if independent of her, a complete failure of her duty to manage the State Department. I’m trying to figure out how the division of the Ukraine was Hillary’s doing. She left the State Department in early 2013, a year before Russia annexed the Crimea. And even if she had been Sec of State at the time, I rather think the governments (and populations) of Russia and Ukraine would have played at least some small role in those events. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/157 "2016-08-23T17:03:49Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > What news sources do people here find trustworthy? Personally, I don’t use just one source. I like to look at multiple sources, and try to look at each of them critically. I include international sources. Over time, I do develop a bias for certain sources as being more reliable, but never assume that ONE will have “The Truth”. EVERYthing has some kind of bias. (including myself) One thing I NEVER trust is facebook postings, or stuff sent to me by “concerned friends”. Most of this turns out to be utter bilge. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/158 "2016-08-23T17:07:43Z")
It’s not apathy its lack of anything resembling “proof”. If she did something wrong I would change my opinion but so far I see a bad decision on emails… and a bunch of crap about murders, letting troops die, and other such nonsense. I support Hillary with no reservations. She is a solid and dedicated her life to public service. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/159 "2016-08-23T17:15:31Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > I didn’t hear that recording through the news, someone must have sent it to me. It did bother me, but whatever. I read this entire thread. I learned a lot. > > What news sources do people here find trustworthy? I use the BBC as my primary news source. As outsiders, they have a more neutral take on things. But like Euphonius, I also get news from lots of other places, including CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post. I use Flipboard to help aggregate news so I see stories from all over. I also use news aggregator sites like Salon, Slate, Reddit, Metafilter, Huffington Post but I try to only look at stuff that is covered at other news sources, too. Some of those sources aren’t especially trustworthy, (Reddit - lol) but they can spotlight links from more reputable sources. I agree about avoiding glurge sent from friends and relatives. And memes. I can laugh at memes but they’re not for serious consideration. ---
**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:** [August 23, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603/160 "2016-08-23T17:34:26Z")
My home page is Rueters, my main source for US political news is Politico, on TV I watch MSNBC, and there are a host of other articles and inputs I see @ random times - a magazine article, something linked to from here (so the SDMB counts a bit, too), etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-apathy-over-negitve-things-hillary-clintons-done/763603.md?page=9)