5 ms·

You write as if Trump is just as dirty as Clinton and Assange is simply choosing to not release that information. It is possible that Clinton is, as Trump says,

You write as if Trump is just as dirty as Clinton and Assange is simply choosing to not release that information. It is possible that Clinton is, as Trump says, the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics. She's been hit with scandal after scandal. And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did.

tptacek 10y ago
Thank you for making my point for me.
daveFNbuck 10y ago
The Republicans have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Hillary and so far, nothing has stuck. She may actually be the cleanest candidate in the history of politics.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y ago
  Nothing sticking on her doesn’t have to mean she is the cleanest. It could also mean she has the best spin-doctors or very influential friends that help steer the public discourse.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    Like a husband who was president or the fact she (and her husband) are ridiculous corrupt and sell appointments [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms. There really are people who believe that. In fact, depending on where you get your news, you might also believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actual literal demons, who smell of sulfur.
      - lettergram 10y ago
        I don't believe I made any outrageous claims. I literally linked to a CNN article (which is usually considered middle to slightly left leaning) regarding a top clinton donor being appointed to a security committee. I definitely don't think you should disregard others opinions just because, "There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms." That has no weight, and is just a deflection.
        tptacek 10y ago
        The article you linked to does not make the claim you did. Why is your spin more credible than the claim that Clinton is a sulfurous demon who is motivated only by a hatred of Christianity? But, again! This is an unproductive political argument. If you support Trump, your support for Wikileaks is entirely coherent. I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't support Trump (I hope those arguments are self-evident). I'm here to point out that people who oppose Trump should recognize the role Wikileaks is playing.
        lettergram 10y ago
        The article did make the claim, it was pointing out how one of the largest clinton foundation donors, as well as straight political donors was given a seat on the state departments Intel board, despite not being qualified. Eventually, they had to step down. Again, what you said has no bearing on what I said... I wasn't even discussing wikileaks - I was responding to the parent, mentioning how nothing sticks. As for political ideology, again I made no comment. It's fair to call Hilary corrupt because she is, there's no political leaning involved in my comment. She clearly did a bunch of stuff on the edge of what was moral/legal. She clearly makes deals to gain favors - that's basically what politics is. I made zero comments on trump. Finally, I am not a supporter of either candidate - they both suck and both aren't representative of my views. Nor are either going to improve my quality of life or increase my personal (or family) security.
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Did you know Obama is going to overturn the constitution and run for a third term?
- freehunter 10y ago
  I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the whole emails thing was completely true. She sent state secrets over a private email server using non-secured devices, and those emails were leaked to foreign governments. Doesn't sound "clean" to me.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    We in fact do not know that. Moreover, during the time period Clinton was using her personal mail server --- a thing she discussed at length with Colin Powell, her predecessor --- the State Department's own email server was comprehensively owned up by (wait for it) Russian hackers. It is not only possible but actually somewhat likely that her mails were safer on her own server.
    - ovidnis 10y ago
      source on the source being russian hackers? besides from msm echochamber?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        The "msm echochamber" thing is an especially funny trope, as it amounts to saying, "source on that claim, apart from all of the journalists who actually investigate claims like this".
        ovidnis 10y ago
        There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
        pcwalton 10y ago
        It is an unreasonable request, given that the emails say nothing of the sort. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
VikingCoder 10y ago
> And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did. I'm sorry, none of these seem like witch hunts to you? - He wasn't born in the United States - He's a Muslim - Connection to William Ayers - Connection to Jeremiah Wright - Connection to ACORN - IRS targets enemies - Benghazi - Fast and Furious - Solyndra - Death Panels - Not saluting soldiers - Not putting his hand on his heart during anthem And let me highlight that Colin Powell referred to Benghazi as a "stupid witch hunt". http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/colin-powell-benghazi-stupid-witch-hunt/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/colin-powell-benghazi...
- ghostly_s 10y ago
  He's also had a national political career less than half the length of HRC's.
popmystack 10y ago
>And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did. Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming and shouting about birth certificates and generally shady connections? His ultimate Muslim agenda to bring down the Great Satan that is America? Absolutely nothing of worth is coming from the leaked documents, despite all hell being raised about a smoking gun (that no one can point to) in them. It literally is a witch hunt. If these past 4 elections aren't going to kill the GOP in general, I don't know if anything will. It should be disgusting the out right lies and propaganda that they employ, with a complete lack of integrity and standards. But people still buy into the juicy conspiracy theories and the generally "known and accepted" unknowns. If HRC is the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics, then then last 4 decades of investigations and general obstructionism were undertaken by the most incompetent politicians in the history of politics. Not just one, a whole collection of individuals (senators, house members, governors) from one party who despite their best efforts continually fails at proving claims they have no problem repeating until people start to believe them.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Trump is much dirtier, and most of that, including outright bribery illegally using charity fund, had come out without needing anything like WikiLeaks.
- ManlyBread 10y ago
  If he's so dirty then why the most damning thing the MSM could pin on him is a locker room conversation?

tptacek 10y ago

Thank you for making my point for me.

daveFNbuck 10y ago

The Republicans have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Hillary and so far, nothing has stuck. She may actually be the cleanest candidate in the history of politics.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y ago
Nothing sticking on her doesn’t have to mean she is the cleanest. It could also mean she has the best spin-doctors or very influential friends that help steer the public discourse.
- lettergram 10y ago
  Like a husband who was president or the fact she (and her husband) are ridiculous corrupt and sell appointments [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms. There really are people who believe that. In fact, depending on where you get your news, you might also believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actual literal demons, who smell of sulfur.
    - lettergram 10y ago
      I don't believe I made any outrageous claims. I literally linked to a CNN article (which is usually considered middle to slightly left leaning) regarding a top clinton donor being appointed to a security committee. I definitely don't think you should disregard others opinions just because, "There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms." That has no weight, and is just a deflection.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        The article you linked to does not make the claim you did. Why is your spin more credible than the claim that Clinton is a sulfurous demon who is motivated only by a hatred of Christianity? But, again! This is an unproductive political argument. If you support Trump, your support for Wikileaks is entirely coherent. I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't support Trump (I hope those arguments are self-evident). I'm here to point out that people who oppose Trump should recognize the role Wikileaks is playing.
        lettergram 10y ago
        The article did make the claim, it was pointing out how one of the largest clinton foundation donors, as well as straight political donors was given a seat on the state departments Intel board, despite not being qualified. Eventually, they had to step down. Again, what you said has no bearing on what I said... I wasn't even discussing wikileaks - I was responding to the parent, mentioning how nothing sticks. As for political ideology, again I made no comment. It's fair to call Hilary corrupt because she is, there's no political leaning involved in my comment. She clearly did a bunch of stuff on the edge of what was moral/legal. She clearly makes deals to gain favors - that's basically what politics is. I made zero comments on trump. Finally, I am not a supporter of either candidate - they both suck and both aren't representative of my views. Nor are either going to improve my quality of life or increase my personal (or family) security.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Did you know Obama is going to overturn the constitution and run for a third term?
freehunter 10y ago
I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the whole emails thing was completely true. She sent state secrets over a private email server using non-secured devices, and those emails were leaked to foreign governments. Doesn't sound "clean" to me.
- tptacek 10y ago
  We in fact do not know that. Moreover, during the time period Clinton was using her personal mail server --- a thing she discussed at length with Colin Powell, her predecessor --- the State Department's own email server was comprehensively owned up by (wait for it) Russian hackers. It is not only possible but actually somewhat likely that her mails were safer on her own server.
  - ovidnis 10y ago
    source on the source being russian hackers? besides from msm echochamber?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The "msm echochamber" thing is an especially funny trope, as it amounts to saying, "source on that claim, apart from all of the journalists who actually investigate claims like this".
      - ovidnis 10y ago
        There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
        pcwalton 10y ago
        It is an unreasonable request, given that the emails say nothing of the sort. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...

VikingCoder 10y ago

> And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did. I'm sorry, none of these seem like witch hunts to you? - He wasn't born in the United States - He's a Muslim - Connection to William Ayers - Connection to Jeremiah Wright - Connection to ACORN - IRS targets enemies - Benghazi - Fast and Furious - Solyndra - Death Panels - Not saluting soldiers - Not putting his hand on his heart during anthem And let me highlight that Colin Powell referred to Benghazi as a "stupid witch hunt". http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/colin-powell-benghazi-stupid-witch-hunt/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/colin-powell-benghazi...

ghostly_s 10y ago
He's also had a national political career less than half the length of HRC's.

popmystack 10y ago

>And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did. Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming and shouting about birth certificates and generally shady connections? His ultimate Muslim agenda to bring down the Great Satan that is America? Absolutely nothing of worth is coming from the leaked documents, despite all hell being raised about a smoking gun (that no one can point to) in them. It literally is a witch hunt. If these past 4 elections aren't going to kill the GOP in general, I don't know if anything will. It should be disgusting the out right lies and propaganda that they employ, with a complete lack of integrity and standards. But people still buy into the juicy conspiracy theories and the generally "known and accepted" unknowns. If HRC is the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics, then then last 4 decades of investigations and general obstructionism were undertaken by the most incompetent politicians in the history of politics. Not just one, a whole collection of individuals (senators, house members, governors) from one party who despite their best efforts continually fails at proving claims they have no problem repeating until people start to believe them.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Trump is much dirtier, and most of that, including outright bribery illegally using charity fund, had come out without needing anything like WikiLeaks.

ManlyBread 10y ago
If he's so dirty then why the most damning thing the MSM could pin on him is a locker room conversation?