Is Ignorance Even a Good Excuse at this Point?

[Terrell]

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.

Exactly. Even if she did all the things she's accused of, and I'm not convinced of that, I'd still take her over Trump, or Cruz. Mentioning Cruz because he was the closest thing Trump had to a threat, and Trump beat him handily in the delegate count. The winner will be HRC or DJT. It might be an interesting afterthought if McMullen manages to get UT, but I doubt it will make the difference in the Electoral College.

 

[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.

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.

That's fine that you think that, but that isn't the topic of this thread, which is that the evidence, as it stands, makes it difficult for a reasonable person to conclude Clinton had no role to play in any and all of the misconduct going on within and/or in connection to her campaign.

Do you dispute this?

Is there any doubt in your mind as to whether Hillary was/wasn't at least somewhat involved in some of the questionable things taking place around her organization or campaign?

 

[bilby]

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.

That's fine that you think that, but that isn't the topic of this thread, which is that the evidence, as it stands, makes it difficult for a reasonable person to conclude Clinton had no role to play in any and all of the misconduct going on within and/or in connection to her campaign.

Do you dispute this?

Is there any doubt in your mind as to whether Hillary was/wasn't at least somewhat involved in some of the questionable things taking place around her organization or campaign?

Perhaps you could detail some of the misconduct that you believe is best evidenced, and provide the evidence that a) It took place and b) Hillary had a role in it?

At this point in time, we have a shit load of allegation and innuendo, and bugger all else. While you make it clear in the OP that you consider a sufficient volume of this crap to be evidence that at least some of it is true, that is in fact just a logical fallacy. The plural of 'rumor' is not 'proof'.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Well said.

Kinda makes you laugh when you think about it.

They head up an international, murderous syndicate, leaving bodies in their wake, but can't seem to secure their Outlook or go to the doctor when they need to.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

One can use a smoke machine fanned by presstitutes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's be honest. Associates getting in trouble have been following Clinton since Arkansas, the latest being Donna Brazile. Clinton perjured herself several times regarding the emails and no one called her on it. But the whole email thing is stupid as Colin Powell did nearly the same thing. She's also been dishonest to an extent in her campaign and debates. Worse her record in foreign policy leaves a lot of room to be improved and that's a subtle way to put it. Bernie was the better candidate and Hillary cheated.

But now that's over. Hillary might get called on her lying to the FBI, but until that happens it's Trump versus Clinton. Trump has had scandals too and is surrounded by them, sex assaults, not paying people for jobs, bankruptcy. Trump is about 3 times more dishonest than Clinton. When he's wrong he won't admit it and he is an entitled asshole with no class. His political stances on domestic policy are way worse than Clinton's and he's more interested in being the loudest and stupidest on foreign policy than in making sense. Like most Republican politicians hes also got the signs and symptoms of a fascist. So Clinton is the better choice.

What else really is there to discuss?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Well said.

Kinda makes you laugh when you think about it.

They head up an international, murderous syndicate, leaving bodies in their wake, but can't seem to secure their Outlook or go to the doctor when they need to.

There's some truth in it if we count the death tolls in the Middle Eastern Wars. Libya is a recent example of 'regime change' where the death toll continues to rise. As for Clinton, these things like email gate seem to follow her.

 

[credoconsolans]

Well said.

Kinda makes you laugh when you think about it.

They head up an international, murderous syndicate, leaving bodies in their wake, but can't seem to secure their Outlook or go to the doctor when they need to.

There's some truth in it if we count the death tolls in the Middle Eastern Wars. Libya is a recent example of 'regime change' where the death toll continues to rise. As for Clinton, these things like email gate seem to follow her.

There is rarely a regime change without a body count.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Let's be honest. Associates getting in trouble have been following Clinton since Arkansas, the latest being Donna Brazile. Clinton perjured herself several times regarding the emails and no one called her on it. But the whole email thing is stupid as Colin Powell did nearly the same thing. She's also been dishonest to an extent in her campaign and debates. Worse her record in foreign policy leaves a lot of room to be improved and that's a subtle way to put it. Bernie was the better candidate and Hillary cheated.

But now that's over. Hillary might get called on her lying to the FBI, but until that happens it's Trump versus Clinton. Trump has had scandals too and is surrounded by them, sex assaults, not paying people for jobs, bankruptcy. Trump is about 3 times more dishonest than Clinton. When he's wrong he won't admit it and he is an entitled asshole with no class. His political stances on domestic policy are way worse than Clinton's and he's more interested in being the loudest and stupidest on foreign policy than in making sense. Like most Republican politicians hes also got the signs and symptoms of a fascist. So Clinton is the better choice.

What else really is there to discuss?

how Trump would have his work cut out if he is to exceed the disastrous foreign policies of his predecessors. It does tend to be a competition to elect the perceived least worst of the two. I don't know we can assess who is more dishonest than the other without establishing the facts in their own scandalous areas.

One may suspect Clinton wants to drive in immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East as these tend to vote Democrat. In addition, to give amnesties to those who are already here. There again if Trump builds a wall, others will build tunnels.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

If the US was facing the prospect of a Nazi regime then for sure Nazis at least would't be undecided.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Well said.

Kinda makes you laugh when you think about it.

They head up an international, murderous syndicate, leaving bodies in their wake, but can't seem to secure their Outlook or go to the doctor when they need to.

The International murderous syndicate will refer to aspects of US foreign policy, even where others are armed and funded to do the killing. There are a lot of bodies in their wake.

There again Clinton made stupid mistakes by using unprotected servers while people continued to be killed in regime change wars.

 

[credoconsolans]

Well said.

Kinda makes you laugh when you think about it.

They head up an international, murderous syndicate, leaving bodies in their wake, but can't seem to secure their Outlook or go to the doctor when they need to.

The International murderous syndicate will refer to aspects of US foreign policy, even where others are armed and funded to do the killing. There are a lot of bodies in their wake.

As are all administrations. Iraq isn't forgotten by any stretch of the imagination.

There again Clinton made stupid mistakes by using unprotected servers while people continued to be killed in regime change wars.

War is all hell, isn't it?

 

[Juma]

It does tend to be a competition to elect the perceived least worst of the two. I don't know we can assess who is more dishonest than the other without establishing the facts in their own scandalous areas.

What? Wait.... what?
You cannot establish who is more dishonest of these two? It's as simple as watch five minutes of the debates. There is no question that Trump is lying ALL the time. Everything he says is wrong.

 

[blastula]

WRONG.

/trumpspeak

 

[whichphilosophy]

There's some truth in it if we count the death tolls in the Middle Eastern Wars. Libya is a recent example of 'regime change' where the death toll continues to rise. As for Clinton, these things like email gate seem to follow her.

There is rarely a regime change without a body count.

But a regime change that produces something worse that before with a high cost of lives is not worthwhile in the first place. Libya will follow her around and will be enshrined in history.

- - - Updated - - -

It does tend to be a competition to elect the perceived least worst of the two. I don't know we can assess who is more dishonest than the other without establishing the facts in their own scandalous areas.

What? Wait.... what?
You cannot establish who is more dishonest of these two? It's as simple as watch five minutes of the debates. There is no question that Trump is lying ALL the time. Everything he says is wrong.

That's why they are campaigning. Everyone? Did you speak to everyone?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ratings from politifact gave Hillary somewhere in the 20%s for dishonesty in debates. Trump got somewhere in the 70%s for his dishonesty. So like I wrote Clinton is dishonest but Trump is about 3x as dishonest.

 

[iolo]

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

If the US was facing the prospect of a Nazi regime then for sure Nazis at least would't be undecided.

They aren't - they are solidly for Trump, every racist man and woman of 'em, and as full of irrational hatred and spite as their fuhrer.

 

[Elixir]

If the US was facing the prospect of a Nazi regime then for sure Nazis at least would't be undecided.

They aren't - they are solidly for Trump, every racist man and woman of 'em, and as full of irrational hatred and spite as their fuhrer.

Yup.
Top Nazi leader: Trump will be a ‘real opportunity’ for white nationalists

 

[cycomiko]

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.

That's fine that you think that, but that isn't the topic of this thread, which is that the evidence, as it stands, makes it difficult for a reasonable person to conclude Clinton had no role to play in any and all of the misconduct going on within and/or in connection to her campaign.

Do you dispute this?

Is there any doubt in your mind as to whether Hillary was/wasn't at least somewhat involved in some of the questionable things taking place around her organization or campaign?

Evidence of what? She admitted that she had a private email server and she shouldn't have. What else are we calling "questionable"? That one of her top aids was married to Anthony Weiner?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

There is no question that she is corrupt and pay to play, but at the end of the day she isn't Trump.... Yes that is how pathetic your country has become.