Is Ignorance Even a Good Excuse at this Point?

[JonA]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

 

[bilby]

Allegations and accusations cost nothing and are in unlimited supply.

If anything, their numbers suggest a campaign of slander. If she has done one or two of the things she is accused of, then her opponents would be far better served by concentrating on those. That they do not is very suspicious.

If she did do everything she is accused of, then surely one or two of them would have produced hard evidence.

The most plausible explanation for large numbers of unevidenced accusations is that all of them are unfounded.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

Good heavens. Are you trying to imply that her e-mail security was a mistake? If so, I agree.

 

[none]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

Meh, she's resourceful

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

Maybe she's really good at being impersonally involved.

 

[zorq]

Allegations and accusations cost nothing and are in unlimited supply.

If anything, their numbers suggest a campaign of slander. If she has done one or two of the things she is accused of, then her opponents would be far better served by concentrating on those. That they do not is very suspicious.

If she did do everything she is accused of, then surely one or two of them would have produced hard evidence.

The most plausible explanation for large numbers of unevidenced accusations is that all of them are unfounded.

I agree.

A great chunk of people are individually too lazy to actually assess the truth or likelihood of any one claim. In other words, lies and accusations will always find some audience so your enemies lose nothing by making them. False accusers might lose their credibility among the segment of the population who care more about the truth than tribal jingoism, but even then, only the skeptics who aren't already too busy will figure it out.

That said, Hillary has already publicly agreed that the way she set up her email server was a mistake that she regrets. She claims it was an honest mistake though. I personally believe her because the investigations agree that she likely wasn't deliberately trying to jeopardize national security. Most of her enemies choose not to believer her OR the investigations because they care less about truth than tribal jingoism.

 

[James Brown]

If Breitbart is to be believed, we must accept two inextricably-linked facts:

1. The Clintons are the heads of a global cabal, manipulating regimes and markets with impunity, enriching themselves and their inner circle, and swiftly executing anyone who crosses their path, all the while leaving no visible evidence beyond circumstantial bread crumbs, which they cover up due to their iron grip on law enforcement and the judiciary.

2. They don't know how to secure an e-mail server.

 

[beero1000]

The whole "where there's smoke, there's fire" thing kinda goes out the window when there are thousands of people trying to find evidence of fire and barely finding smoke.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

Given the number of times that JonA has been seen at crime scenes is there anyone who doesn't believe he was personally involved in some of them?

 

[Ford]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

At first I was skeptical of the idea that Clinton might be personally involved in her campaign, but the fact that she keeps showing up to campaign events and debates led me to believe otherwise.


Then I heard a campaign ad where she said "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message." That sealed the deal for me. She is clearly involved in her campaign. She may even be in charge.

 

[jonatha]

I thought this was going to be a thread about undecided voters...

 

[iolo]

Any voters who are undecided in the face of a Nazi regime under Trump are too stupid to write, surely?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

It appears Trump's campaign was secretly coordinating with Russians via a server to server connection between Alfa Bank and Trump. We don't know what the communications consisted of, however, the Trump campaign has distanced itself from any criticism of Russia, Trump even insisting that Putin wouldn't enter Ukraine (after the annexing of Crimea!).

Clinton has conflicts of interest. Trump is dirty as all fuck!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Breitbart is to be believed, we must accept two inextricably-linked facts:

1. The Clintons are the heads of a global cabal, manipulating regimes and markets with impunity, enriching themselves and their inner circle, and swiftly executing anyone who crosses their path, all the while leaving no visible evidence beyond circumstantial bread crumbs, which they cover up due to their iron grip on law enforcement and the judiciary.

2. They don't know how to secure an e-mail server.

The way I put it, based on the impressions of Clinton at a site, 'A weak, dying, incompetent politician who'll rule the US with an iron fist after shredding the Constitution.'

 

[Bronzeage]

Given the size and scope of questionable behavior surrounding her campaign, is there anyone who doesn't believe Clinton to be personally involved in at least some of it?

I would be very surprised if Hillary were not personally involved in her campaign. After all, if elected, she'll be the one doing all the work.

Imagine getting a call sometime around midnight on election day, "Congratulations, you've been elected President." Her first reaction is not going to be, "How did that happen?"

I've been hearing "Hillary did it," for the past 20 years or more. The charges fall into two broad categories, shit happens, and it never happened.

She had a private server and it got hacked. Shit happens. She put a 12 year old rape victim on the witness stand and made her cry. Never happened.

Hillary has live in a fishbowl under a sunlamp for the past 40 years. If there was something to all theses allegations and accusations, there would be at least a trial. It's never gotten that far.

Then, when we consider the credibility of the sources, your fire and smoke diagnosis turns out to be just more smoke.

 

[Elixir]

... when we consider the credibility of the sources, your fire and smoke diagnosis turns out to be just more smoke.

Considering the mindset of the HRC demonizing zombies, one has to wonder about some of the chemical constituents of all that smoke.

 

[James Brown]

Hillary has live in a fishbowl under a sunlamp for the past 40 years. If there was something to all theses allegations and accusations, there would be at least a trial. It's never gotten that far.

The fact that after all that scrutiny she hasn't A) bolted to the private sector where she could have made a lot more money, or B) lashed out in a suicidal clock-tower rageferno is testimony to her character in public service when under fire.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, holds grudges for petty insults for life.

 

[JonA]

I was more referring to the DNC's treatment of Sanders and the recent revelation that a CNN employee provided her campaign certain debate questions.

Then there's her foundation and its role in gaining rich people special access to her as a government employee. And of course all the other unsavory things.

While a misstep here and there can be blamed solely on her employees or supporters acting on their own, the amount and scope of the stuff we're talking about makes it hard to accept excuses that she was personally unaware of all the misconduct and that it was all just her supporters or the people who worked for her doing it without her approval.

 

[Elixir]

... the amount and scope of the stuff we're talking about makes it hard to accept excuses ...

The "amount and scope" is a direct product of THIRTY YEARS of trying to gin something up. Fairly paltry, considering the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer money that the Repugs have spent trying unsuccessfully to hang ANYTHING on her.

 

[cycomiko]

I was more referring to the DNC's treatment of Sanders and the recent revelation that a CNN employee provided her campaign certain debate questions.

Then there's her foundation and its role in gaining rich people special access to her as a government employee. And of course all the other unsavory things.

While a misstep here and there can be blamed solely on her employees or supporters acting on their own, the amount and scope of the stuff we're talking about makes it hard to accept excuses that she was personally unaware of all the misconduct and that it was all just her supporters or the people who worked for her doing it without her approval.

Given the two real choices in this election, she's still by far the most qualified person for the job. No matter what you think she's done. Even if she masterminded everything that she's been accused of. She's still better than the narcissistic, authoritarian, imbecile.