The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Dill]

(05-01-2019, 12:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you want to set the guilt standard as Found guilty by an investigation. I think we can consider both "clean" but otherwise:

Her reported actions toward women accusing her husband of sexual harassment/rape.
Taking "sniper fire" in Bosnia
Her processing classified government documents from a personal server the saying she didn't know she couldn't
Having 3,000ish emails deleted from her personal computer after it had been supeanoed
Whitewater
Travelgate
Telling the public Benghazi was impulsive act while emailing her daughter and telling her it was a planned Al Quida plot
The Clinton foundation

These are but a few. The point is that you are a hypocrite if you say you "prize ethical conduct" and that's the reason you voted for Hills.

There may be other reasons one selected Hills over Trump but GTFO if you try to claim it was because of each's ethical conduct

LOL you forgot Vince Foster.  

No one voted for Hillary simply because she appeared more ethical--though she certainly did. 

And this is a troubling list of supposed equivalences, tossed out as if self-evidently so.

You'd compare what Hillary is "reported" to have said about women who had affairs with her husband to what trump publicly says about women--like porn stars paid to keep silent?

Posit the sniper fire exaggeration against lies to incite hatred and division-- thousands of Muslims cheering from rooftops on 9/11, 3-5 million illegal voters? A mother and doctor deciding whether to kill a live baby?   Sniper fire against the 10,000 tallied lies of Trump?

Every item on your list shows the damage done to civic standards--and the capacity to apply them--first by right wing media over the decades before Trump's election, then by those who defend him afterwards.

Take the Clinton Foundation, which actually and provided HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in direct relief of disasters and medicine for diseases. Ethical questions were raised when people looking for favors began to contribute money to the foundation while seeking access to the Clintons.  No evidence of actual influence was ever found.  And the money still went to help people.  Four star rating from the Charity Navigator.  I grant the appearance of impropriety, but this is a long ways from Trump's history of grift. Even if you throw in "scandals" for which Hillary was never charged, like Whitewater and travelgate, the former of which, by the way, involved the Clintons' PUBLIC tax returns.

Compare this to the Trump foundation, dissolved under imminent legal action. A WaPo reporter got a Pulitzer Prize for tracking the non-disbursement of donations from that organization, among myriad other ethical improprieties.  At the time he won, 6 million supposedly donated to veterans still had not been disbursed, though 4 million was later paid out, as the WaPo began publishing its responses from intended recipients who were still waiting.  The NY attorney general filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2018, claiming he used the foundation to settle business disputes and campaign expenses. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-06-14/new-york-attorney-general-sues-trump-foundation. Nothing more than a shell game.  To this one could add the infamous Trump university, which settled two class actions lawsuits out of court for 25 million. Still waiting to see Trump's tax forms.  
Benghazi.  Jeezus.  There is no email in which Hillary tells Chelsea about a "planned" attack.  The one perp who was captured says the attack WAS spontaneous and based on the video The Innocence of Muslims (obviously he had not been watching Fox!). Yet people-who-never-watch-Fox still have this infamous "contradiction" ready to hand. From a false either/or between "spontaneous" attack and Al Qaeda affilliate participation arises "proof" that Hillary "lied to the American people."  Better yet, proof that Fox knows how to play its audience, who trust their selected experts rather than themselves to reconstruct the timeline reading primary documents.  

Then we turn to emails which Hillary had a legal right to delete BEFORE the subpoena deleted afterwards by a slacker. 

None of this amounts to four bankruptcies, a scam charity, admitted sexual assault, and birtherism, and then election shenanigans like mocking a disabled reporter and insulting women's looks (especially the 19 accusing him of assault/harassment) and referencing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" (though "some" might not be); and the embrace of help from a foreign adversary.  Hillary might look ethically challenged compared to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but not compared to Trump.  

So yes. People who voted for Hillary were largely voting for competence over incompetence. And whatever ethical flaws she had, they paled in comparison to Trump's. They knew she would not embarrass the nation as Trump has done.  That is why the Russians want HIM to win, not her.

[*bfine32*]

(05-01-2019, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What, no mention of her murder of Vince Foster?

Most of the things you mention above have been investigated and Hillary was cleared.  The only people who consider all of that immoral are the people who believe the rumors from the right wing echo chamber.

Nope, that's a far-fetched conspiracy that folks that follow the right wing echo chamber would even introduce. 

What has Trump not been cleared of?

FWIW, I consider all of that immoral, regardless of who I believe. I would hope most Americans would. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-01-2019, 05:29 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL you forgot Vince Foster.  

No one voted for Hillary simply because she appeared more ethical--though she certainly did. 

And this is a troubling list of supposed equivalences, tossed out as if self-evidently so.

You'd compare what Hillary is "reported" to have said about women who had affairs with her husband to what trump publicly says about women--like porn stars paid to keep silent?

Posit the sniper fire exaggeration against lies to incite hatred and division-- thousands of Muslims cheering from rooftops on 9/11, 3-5 million illegal voters? A mother and doctor deciding whether to kill a live baby?   Sniper fire against the 10,000 tallied lies of Trump?

Every item on your list shows the damage done to civic standards--and the capacity to apply them--first by right wing media over the decades before Trump's election, then by those who defend him afterwards.

Take the Clinton Foundation, which actually and provided HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in direct relief of disasters and medicine for diseases. Ethical questions were raised when people looking for favors began to contribute money to the foundation while seeking access to the Clintons.  No evidence of actual influence was ever found.  And the money still went to help people.  Four star rating from the Charity Navigator.  I grant the appearance of impropriety, but this is a long ways from Trump's history of grift. Even if you throw in "scandals" for which Hillary was never charged, like Whitewater and travelgate, the former of which, by the way, involved the Clintons' PUBLIC tax returns.

Compare this to the Trump foundation, dissolved under imminent legal action. A WaPo reporter got a Pulitzer Prize for tracking the non-disbursement of donations from that organization, among myriad other ethical improprieties.  At the time he won, 6 million supposedly donated to veterans still had not been disbursed, though 4 million was later paid out, as the WaPo began publishing its responses from intended recipients who were still waiting.  The NY attorney general filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2018, claiming he used the foundation to settle business disputes and campaign expenses. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-06-14/new-york-attorney-general-sues-trump-foundation. Nothing more than a shell game.  To this one could add the infamous Trump university, which settled two class actions lawsuits out of court for 25 million. Still waiting to see Trump's tax forms.  
Benghazi.  Jeezus.  There is no email in which Hillary tells Chelsea about a "planned" attack.  The one perp who was captured says the attack WAS spontaneous and based on the video The Innocence of Muslims (obviously he had not been watching Fox!). Yet people-who-never-watch-Fox still have this infamous "contradiction" ready to hand. From a false either/or between "spontaneous" attack and Al Qaeda affilliate participation arises "proof" that Hillary "lied to the American people."  Better yet, proof that Fox knows how to play its audience, who trust their selected experts rather than themselves to reconstruct the timeline reading primary documents.  

Then we turn to emails which Hillary had a legal right to delete BEFORE the subpoena deleted afterwards by a slacker. 

None of this amounts to four bankruptcies, a scam charity, admitted sexual assault, and birtherism, and then election shenanigans like mocking a disabled reporter and insulting women's looks (especially the 19 accusing him of assault/harassment) and referencing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" (though "some" might not be); and the embrace of help from a foreign adversary.  Hillary might look ethically challenged compared to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but not compared to Trump.  

So yes. People who voted for Hillary were largely voting for competence over incompetence. And whatever ethical flaws she had, they paled in comparison to Trump's. They knew she would not embarrass the nation as Trump has done.  That is why the Russians want HIM to win, not her.

Read response to Fred. It's perfectly fine to say I voted for Hills because she was more competent, I liked her policies, ect... But when you trot out I voted for her because "I prize ethical conduct" you should be rightly called to task. 

But Fred's got your back he even brought up the same unsubstantiated claim of murder to introduce the Red Herring to make the rest seem more far-fetched. Do you guys read from the same book?

[Dill]

(05-01-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Read response to Fred. It's perfectly fine to say I voted for Hills because she was more competent, I liked her policies, ect... But when you trot out I voted for her because "I prize ethical conduct" you should be rightly called to task. 

But Fred's got your back he even brought up the same unsubstantiated claim of murder to introduce the Red Herring to make the rest seem more far-fetched. Do you guys read from the same book?

I am going to acknowledge you have a point here, Bfine.  No one likely voted for Hillary because she stood out as the ethical choice. I grant that if Jeb Bush or Kasich had won the nomination, either would have been the better "ethical" candidate.

It is only in contrast to Trump that one could say she was the more ethical candidate.  That claim is not invalidated because she fired the WH travel office made bitchy comments about Bill's paramours. Voter inability to see the difference between Clinton and Trump on this score is likely connected to voter inability to register their difference in competency, resulting in the current shameful episode in U.S. presidential history.

Fred might have brought up Foster because you trotted out a rather unvetted Fox list of Clinton ethical lapses, most of which cannot be taken at face value.  Fox Hillary is not real Hillary, just as Fox Trump--the guy who is draining the swamp and on top foreign policy--is not real Trump.

[fredtoast]

(05-01-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But Fred's got your back he even brought up the same unsubstantiated claim of murder to introduce the Red Herring to make the rest seem more far-fetched. Do you guys read from the same book?

It is not a "red herring" because most of the stuff you listed was far fetched.

[hollodero]

(05-01-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Read response to Fred. It's perfectly fine to say I voted for Hills because she was more competent, I liked her policies, ect... But when you trot out I voted for her because "I prize ethical conduct" you should be rightly called to task. 

She wouldn't say she believed Putin over her own intelligence agencies. Things like that are ethical, aren't they? 
It takes a certain lack of ethics to deny a crime committed by a foreign power and lie to the American people over and over again in the process.

Also, she doesn't twitterhate people. I find that ethical too, to not do that.

Turns out I'd have a much longer list. I have to say, I think Hillary clearly is the more ethical person. As would be pretty much everyone.
And the clinton foundation might be suspicious, but still does noble and charitable things around the world. The Trump foundation does pay Trump paintings for Trump. There's an ethical difference.

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not a "red herring" because most of the stuff you listed was far fetched.

Identify "most" of the stuff I listed as being far fetched. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 11:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: She wouldn't say she believed Putin over her own intelligence agencies. Things like that are ethical, aren't they? 
It takes a certain lack of ethics to deny a crime committed by a foreign power and lie to the American people over and over again in the process.

Also, she doesn't twitterhate people. I find that ethical too, to not do that.

Turns out I'd have a much longer list. I have to say, I think Hillary clearly is the more ethical person. As would be pretty much everyone.
And the clinton foundation might be suspicious, but still does noble and charitable things around the world. The Trump foundation does pay Trump paintings for Trump. There's an ethical difference.

Of course we were talking about the election cycle. Pretty sure things you are talking about happened after.

WTS, are you saying one would vote for Hills because they prize ethical conduct otr are you just saying?

[hollodero]

(05-04-2019, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we were talking about the election cycle. Pretty sure things you are talking about happened after.

But one could have assumed the outcome pretty much. Already in the election cycle. Where he already was known as the prime birther. Who then claimed muslims were cheering 9/11 in New Jersey and asked a crowd to boo a judge based on his Mexican sounding name. He had called for beating up people multiple times, denied McCain was a hero, led a vile lock her up campaign full of spiteful lies. He sat at O'Reilly and diminished past Russian crimes. He already was a twitter idiot. And he already was an unconditional narcissist, an ignorant human being and a pathological liar. None of that came as surprise and the ingredients were all there.

(05-04-2019, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, are you saying one would vote for Hills because they prize ethical conduct otr are you just saying?

Oh absolutely I would say something like that. I wouldn't say THAT, because I am in no mood to "prize" Hillary, who I do not like. But in comparison, she clearly was the more ethical person to me, and that amounts to a legit point of consideration at the votting booth. Example one, she did not betray people with a fraud university. Example two, see above. Example three, her questionable foundation at least did good in the world. Exampl... ok, I leave it at that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 12:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: But one could have assumed the outcome pretty much. Already in the election cycle. Where he already was known as the prime birther. Who then claimed muslims were cheering 9/11 in New Jersey and asked a crowd to boo a judge based on his Mexican sounding name. He had called for beating up people multiple times, denied McCain was a hero, led a vile lock her up campaign full of spiteful lies. He sat at O'Reilly and diminished past Russian crimes. He already was a twitter idiot. And he already was an unconditional narcissist, an ignorant human being and a pathological liar. None of that came as surprise and the ingredients were all there.



Oh absolutely I would say something like that. I wouldn't say THAT, because I am in no mood to "prize" Hillary, who I do not like. But in comparison, she clearly was the more ethical person to me. Example one, she did not betray people with a fraud university. Example two, see above. Example three, her questionable foundation at least did good in the world. Exampl... ok, I leave it at that.

Oh, one could have "assumed" how immoral Trump would be as POTUS, but no one could assume how Hills would have been.

As to the rest.. It pretty much supports exactly what I said about ignoring warts to take the high ground. The vast majority of folks realize Hills was the most flawed opponent anyone could have trotted out to take on Trump. And any attempt to suggest she is "more morale" is just silly. 

[hollodero]

(05-04-2019, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, one could have "assumed" how immoral Trump would be as POTUS, but no one could assume how Hills would have been.

I did assume Hillary would not have stated she believed Putin over her intelligence agencies. You were the one calling me out for assuming. But I still assume that about Hillary. Wouild you assume she would have behaved like Trump?

(05-04-2019, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the rest.. It pretty much supports exactly what I said about ignoring warts to take the high ground. The vast majority of folks realize Hills was the most flawed opponent anyone could have trotted out to take on Trump. And any attempt to suggest she is "more morale" is just silly. 

I don't think it's silly. I think it's silly to claim Hillary is just as morally corrupt as a birther who ran a scam university and did all the things I just mentioned.

As for what happened after the election cycle, there's not even a comparison to the former secretary of state.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 12:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: I did assume Hillary would not have stated she believed Putin over her intelligence agencies. You were the one calling me out for assuming. But I still assume that about Hillary. Wouild you assume she would have behaved like Trump?



I don't think it's silly. I think it's silly to claim Hillary is just as morally corrupt as a birther who ran a scam university and did all the things I just mentioned.

As for what happened after the election cycle, there's not even a comparison to the former secretary of state.

I'll just let anyone that suggests Hills was the better candidate because of morale conduct speak for themselves. 

But yeah,Hills was clean as Secretary of State. 

[hollodero]

(05-04-2019, 12:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll just let anyone that suggests Hills was the better candidate because of morale conduct speak for themselves. 

I guess I did just that. I can live with it.

(05-04-2019, 12:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But yeah,Hills was clean as Secretary of State. 

I didn't say that and you know that. She had a certain conduct that sure was questionable enough. Still her conduct in high office was somewhat known.
And it was nowhere near as morally corrupt as Trump's actual conduct. And if you're in the mood to dismiss his actual conduct, it was also quite clear on the election cycle that Trump is the morally inferior candidate. Morally inferior to Hillary, to you, to almost anyone really. I stated my reasons why.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 12:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: I guess I did just that. I can live with it.


I didn't say that and you know that. She had a certain conduct that sure was questionable enough. Still her conduct in high office was somewhat known.
And it was nowhere near as morally corrupt as Trump's actual conduct. And if you're in the mood to dismiss his actual conduct, it was also quite clear on the election cycle that Trump is the morally inferior candidate. Morally inferior to Hillary, to you, to almost anyone really. I stated my reasons why.

I haven't dismissed Trump's behavior or just like you I would award one morality points over the other. I have also stated reasons why it's a "wash" at best. 

Let's just end with you awarding Hills morality points. You can live with it after all. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 12:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: I guess I did just that. I can live with it.


I didn't say that and you know that. She had a certain conduct that sure was questionable enough. Still her conduct in high office was somewhat known.
And it was nowhere near as morally corrupt as Trump's actual conduct. And if you're in the mood to dismiss his actual conduct, it was also quite clear on the election cycle that Trump is the morally inferior candidate. Morally inferior to Hillary, to you, to almost anyone really. I stated my reasons why.

I haven't dismissed Trump's behavior or just like you I would award one morality points over the other. I have also stated reasons why it's a "wash" at best. 

Let's just end with you awarding Hills morality points. You can live with it after all. 

[Dill]

(05-04-2019, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, one could have "assumed" how immoral Trump would be as POTUS, but no one could assume how Hills would have been.

As to the rest.. It pretty much supports exactly what I said about ignoring warts to take the high ground. The vast majority of folks realize Hills was the most flawed opponent anyone could have trotted out to take on Trump. And any attempt to suggest she is "more morale" is just silly. 

Based upon Hillary's performance as Senator and Secretary of State, one could assume she'd be a steady hand on the tiller of state. Our allies wouldn't be shaking their heads in disbelief at trashing the Iran Deal or two empty NK Korea summits. She wouldn't be tweeting nonsense about ugly men, announcing policy and firing officials on Twitter.  Russia would be on its guard. One could expect scandals, but they'd be of he daily faux Fox variety that nagged Obama.

Hillary won the primary because she was so knowledgeable about policy and good at debating. She lost because for many Americans, those were no longer interesting qualities in a presidential candidate.

What "vast majority" could you be refering to?  She beat Trump by almost 3 million votes.  I don't see another Dem candidate who could have done that.   The "most flawed opponent" you see is basically Fox Hillary--the one you think told her daughter that the Benghazi attack was "planned."

So no, it is not "just silly" to suppose she was more moral than the p-grabber who was setting up payments to silence a porn star through his "fixer" while the Russians circulated a story about Hillary's child trafficking ring to make sure their guy won.

The Russians could  tell which candidate had the least integrity; why are you having such difficulty?

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 12:52 AM)Dill Wrote:
Based upon Hillary's performance as Senator and Secretary of State, one could assume she'd be a steady hand on the tiller of state. Our allies wouldn't be shaking their heads in disbelief at trashing the Iran Deal or two empty NK Korea summits. She wouldn't be tweeting nonsense about ugly men, announcing policy and firing officials on Twitter.  Russia would be on its guard. One could expect scandals, but they'd be of he daily faux Fox variety that nagged Obama.

Hillary won the primary because she was so knowledgeable about policy and good at debating. She lost because for many Americans, those were no longer interesting qualities in a presidential candidate.

What "vast majority" could you be refering to?  She beat Trump by almost 3 million votes.  I don't see another Dem candidate who could have done that.   The "most flawed opponent" you see is basically Fox Hillary--the one you think told her daughter that the Benghazi attack was "planned."

So no, it is not "just silly" to suppose she was more moral than the p-grabber who was setting up payments to silence a porn star through his "fixer" while the Russians circulated a story about Hillary's child trafficking ring to make sure their guy won.

The Russians could  tell which candidate had the least integrity; why are you having such difficulty?

You keep bringing it back to "competence" to augment you assertion of who was morally superior and that's really all I need to prove the point. 

[hollodero]

(05-04-2019, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's just end with you awarding Hills morality points. You can live with it after all. 

I can! Just to paint a more precise picture, I do not award her points. I just take away fewer points from her than from Trump. She is the more ethical person in comparison to Trump, that doesn't make her a particular ethical person. That's not a logical conclusion or implication of my stance, yet it's the one you're arguing against.

I'd also say a shoplifter is morally less depraved than an armed robber, but that doesn't make said shoplifter a fine person. I'd still make my case for him were i to compare morals.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2019, 01:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: I can! Just to paint a more precise picture, I do not award her points. I just take away fewer points from her than from Trump. She is the more ethical person in comparison to Trump, that doesn't make her a particular ethical person. That's not a logical conclusion or implication of my stance, yet it's the one you're arguing against.

I'd also say a shoplifter is morally less depraved than an armed robber, but that doesn't make said shoplifter a fine person. I'd still make my case for him were i to compare morals.

As I said: Roll wth it.

[Dill]

(05-04-2019, 12:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: But one could have assumed the outcome pretty much. Already in the election cycle. Where he already was known as the prime birther. Who then claimed muslims were cheering 9/11 in New Jersey and asked a crowd to boo a judge based on his Mexican sounding name. He had called for beating up people multiple times, denied McCain was a hero, led a vile lock her up campaign full of spiteful lies. He sat at O'Reilly and diminished past Russian crimes. He already was a twitter idiot. And he already was an unconditional narcissist, an ignorant human being and a pathological liar. None of that came as surprise and the ingredients were all there.

I always found especially disturbing the way Trump trotted 4 Clinton accusers before the cameras for the 3rd presidential debate on foreign policy.

THAT ONE THING should be enough to signal the guy was unstable, had no judgment, no sense of what the goal of a foreign policy debate should be, no sense of dignity or decorum.  Not to mention his poor performance in the debate.  What should have been sober assessment of foreign policy expertise was suddenly endowed with the manufactured drama of a professional wrestling match.

One of the 4 was a woman who had been raped as a girl. Hillary had defended the rapist--as a COURT APPOINTED LAWYER.  So the woman gets to be an "accuser." That reminds me of demands that Hillary "apologize" to the families of those killed at Benghazi for which she was somehow responsible. While Trump's flaws were ignored, Hillary's were massively inflated or outright imagined.  That's how the difference between Hillary and Trump becomes a "wash."

The cheering Muslims incident, along with the 3-5 million illegal voters he claimed gave hillary the majority raised serious questions about his ability or willingness to distinguish between fact and conspiracy theories.  I cannot think of Hillary "lies" that have that quality.