How is Hillary a crook?

If Hillary is average, do you consider politicians to lie a massive amount, with a straight face?
Yeah. Just the dividing ideological lines are impossibly strict- there's no way these Americans all believe these very different things so strongly- honesty would show us more reaching across the aisle. And it depends what the criteria are- are we talking personal honesty, honesty in representing your people, business honesty/ethics, etc. Hillary seems about average- she shifts around when it's politically correct to do so, is more secretive than appropriate, and isn't quite hostile enough to corporate personhood to honestly proclaim she cares about everyday people. And she doesn't mind the appearance of conflict of interest. I think she would actually be more popular if she were more honest though.
 
This is an interesting topic, how hard to criticize a politician (who was not the president or part of his cabinet and such) for supporting the initial invasion of Iraq?

From up here, the whole USA seemed CRAZY when it came to deciding to invade Iraq. Considering how much of the country supported it and how, well, nuts so many of you seemed to be in regards to those people (or even allied countries) who weren't in support, I personally feel like the majority should be given the benefit of the doubt that they were swept up along with their nation, as long as those individuals express that they understand that they made a mistake.

Of course, this is all from the perspective that the invasion of Iraq WAS a mistake.
Well that's a good question, and I guess we have forgiven the politicians who went along with it. But there was more opposition to that war than it appeared. Nobody believed Colin Powell when he did his "reveal" of the WMD evidence, we all just went along with it. A really disgusting time for our nation.
 
Honestly that's about the level of response I've come to expect in threads like this. It's either that, or ever-longer repetitions of points previous responses have addressed with acknowledge or addressing those other posts.
Your pt was correct partly, i slightly worded it wrong but i also don't think she did much as a Senator and SoS to warrant the nomination. That being said, the fact that she attained either position is egregious in my mind, but i guess i'm alone in that

If Bill was never President, shit even Governor of Arkansas, would she have ever even sniffed a Congressional seat, is what i'm asking? Certainly not the White House

Doubt it
 
Yeah. Just the dividing ideological lines are impossibly strict- there's no way these Americans all believe these very different things so strongly- honesty would show us more reaching across the aisle. And it depends what the criteria are- are we talking personal honesty, honesty in representing your people, business honesty/ethics, etc. Hillary seems about average- she shifts around when it's politically correct to do so, is more secretive than appropriate, and isn't quite hostile enough to corporate personhood to honestly proclaim she cares about everyday people. And she doesn't mind the appearance of conflict of interest. I think she would actually be more popular if she were more honest though.

She has a Brain Williams level problem with the truth routinely. While politicians aren't known for the truth, they aren't normally that bad
 
She has a Brain Williams level problem with the truth routinely. While politicians aren't known for the truth, they aren't normally that bad
But name me a single person who has been under the Republican's Hubble Smear-oscope as long and with as much focus as Hillary has. Let's put that lens on everyone and see what we see.
 
But name me a single person who has been under the Republican's Hubble Smear-oscope as long and with as much focus as Hillary has. Let's put that lens on everyone and see what we see.

Just admit that you're ok with outright, bold faced lying, then
 
If Bill was never President, shit even Governor of Arkansas, would she have ever even sniffed a Congressional seat, is what i'm asking? Certainly not the White House

Doubt it

It seems she at least partly put her own ambition behind herself and supported her husband, and then only pursued hers once he was done in politics (and also once the political climate was significantly more open to women).

I can't form a negative opinion of her political involvement just because her husband was before her, first of all because people often pair up based on shared interests and goals, and second because I never criticized the Bush's for also having their sons involved in politics, which I would think is a much more "what did you do to get here" type of issue as it relates to generations as opposed to peers.
 
Just admit that you're ok with outright, bold faced lying, then
I'm okay with it in that I can live with the reality of it. But I do call a lie when I see one.
 
I'm okay with it in that I can live with the reality of it. But I do call a lie when I see one.

I think that is the problem with out current political system. We catch politicians in outright lies constantly and just shrug our shoulders and say "what are you gonna do?" But a news anchor? We can't have that stuff.
 
The proof that she is a crook is extensive, go look for it. Whitewater, money laundering, drug smuggling/trafficking, Vince Foster, and cattle futures to get you started...

Money laundering and drug smuggling now? So apparently our Secretary of State is Griselda Blanco in her free time...
 
If Bill was never President, shit even Governor of Arkansas, would she have ever even sniffed a Congressional seat, is what i'm asking? Certainly not the White House

Doubt it

Why? PS major at an elite school, very politically active, extremely bright, went to a top aw school, did some important work and seemed to be on track for a big political career, got sidelined to follow Bill to AK (and be a law professor), then became director the Legal Services Corp. and later the chair, and later became one of the top lawyers in the country (twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country by the National Law Journal).

Lots of people with great resumes go into politics, and they don't all get that far, but her pre-political career is pretty much what you expect to see from a future president.
 
I think that is the problem with out current political system. We catch politicians in outright lies constantly and just shrug our shoulders and say "what are you gonna do?" But a news anchor? We can't have that stuff.
I think politicians accurately reflect our values most of the time, with a notable exception in playing us off each other implicitly in order to further their personal wealth and that of their friends. It would be nice if the fact-checking movement had some democratic teeth behind it, in general. But I don't think that's one of the things we value.
 
I think politicians accurately reflect our values most of the time, with a notable exception in playing us off each other implicitly in order to further their personal wealth and that of their friends. It would be nice if the fact-checking movement had some democratic teeth behind it, in general. But I don't think that's one of the things we value.

I think they accurately reflect the values of big business. There is not a single candidate, and hasn't been one for years, who represents me. Bernie Sanders is the only one who I think actually cares about the people of the country, but I don't think any of his plans would work. Our system is completely controlled by the rich.
 
Why? PS major at an elite school, very politically active, extremely bright, went to a top aw school, did some important work and seemed to be on track for a big political career, got sidelined to follow Bill to AK (and be a law professor), then became director the Legal Services Corp. and later the chair, and later became one of the top lawyers in the country (twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country by the National Law Journal).

Lots of people with great resumes go into politics, and they don't all get that far, but her pre-political career is pretty much what you expect to see from a future president.
And as first lady?
 
And as first lady?

What? She was unusually active for a first lady (for obvious reasons).

The point is simply that she does have the type of resume you expect from a presidential candidate, and before winning her Senate seat, she had the type of resume you expect from a Senator. You asserted that she wouldn't have even come close to winning a seat in Congress if not for her husband. No evidence of that. And it's doubtful that Bill would have risen as high as he did without her.
 
Obviously dancing around the point because the bad comparasion

You are grasping now. I explained why it was a moronic analogy. Get out

As I said it just you don't like the comparison and that does not make any of any more guilty of things they are accused of. There is a difference between knowing and proving. So she may never be held accountable for anything but that doesn't change anything just the second as the others listed.
 
What? She was unusually active for a first lady (for obvious reasons).

The point is simply that she does have the type of resume you expect from a presidential candidate, and before winning her Senate seat, she had the type of resume you expect from a Senator. You asserted that she wouldn't have even come close to winning a seat in Congress if not for her husband. No evidence of that. And it's doubtful that Bill would have risen as high as he did without her.
I disagree w/ all of this. No, she was not on the rise, nobody on the national political scene even knew who she was. She was a lawyer, not a heavily practicing one either, congrats...

And your pt about Bill is absurd, unless you assume that people liked her staying w/ him after he had over 20 affairs

you're hilarious my dude. "no evidence of that', yet you post none and assert the opposite pt w/ such utmost confidence. Your opinion is not fact, not sure you realize that
 
So far to recap

Absolutely no proof she's a criminal

Well, her email situation is pretty cut and dried. I was in D.O.D. comms/intel in the 2000's including Iraq. I was tasked with training our battalion concerning handling of classified information, and I understand the subject well. If I'd have been guilty of any of the offenses Hillary has apparently committed regarding her email, especially given the level of information she was mishandling, I'd have been locked in prison and would probably still be hoping for release now a decade later.

Even if she didn't personally mishandle email (which it seems she did, and that she had an understanding of what she was doing) the neglect that lead to this information being unsecured is still worth prison time.

She's, in my opinion, very likely guilty of mishandling classified information,violation of the Records Act, and violation of the Freedom of Information Act. She's definitely violated State Department policy. Her "sound bytes" to the public are meant to deflect the attention of uninformed people. She says she never sent anything "marked" classified or secret. Intelligence often isn't "marked" classified initially any more than endangered species are stenciled "endangered" on their fur or feathers, etc. If I shoot a Black Rhino and say "I looked at it and it wasn't marked endangered," I don't imagine that excuse would fly, but Hillary is counting on people being either stupid or complicit. I guarantee she understood what information was secret, or more than secret.

Again, just like when she was asked if she wiped her servers and she asked "what, like with a cloth?" How stupid does she think we are, that while she was embroiled in this issue, and knowing she was a lawyer, the first lady, a senator, and the secretary of state, she would have us believe she doesn't know what is meant by "wipe a server."

I'm convinced at this point of two things: One, that she only avoids prosecution for the emails because of her position of political prominence. And two, that she holds this position despite her guilt due to stupid and/or complicit people. If you look into what she's done with those emails, and the statutes she violated in doing so (look up https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793), you cannot conclude that she is innocent of crime.
 
I disagree w/ all of this. No, she was not on the rise, nobody on the national political scene even knew who she was. She was a lawyer, not a heavily practicing one either, congrats...

There's nothing to disagree with. You can look all of that up yourself. It's you know or you don't know it.

And your pt about Bill is absurd, unless you assume that people liked her staying w/ him after he had over 20 affairs

???

you're hilarious my dude. "no evidence of that', yet you post none and assert the opposite pt w/ such utmost confidence. Your opinion is not fact, not sure you realize that

My opinion on what? I posted facts about Clinton's background and said that it's a normal type of background for a high-level politician, even before she was first lady (and of course she's added to it since). I suspect you just weren't aware of her background, but you can just go to Wiki or something.
 
Back
Top