3 ms·

I'm just curious how old you are because I lived through the Bill Clinton years and it was appalling how bad the Clintons were. Their legacy from Arkansas all

I'm just curious how old you are because I lived through the Bill Clinton years and it was appalling how bad the Clintons were. Their legacy from Arkansas all the way up the Pay to Play Clinton Foundation has been completely consistent--to bend and break the law everywhere possible if it is to their benefit to do so and then engage in cover ups, blackmail, and possibly murder to get away with it. They are a modern day crime family. You probably dismiss all this as unproven "tinfoil hat" conspiracy stuff, right? But there is such a large body of circumstancial evidence when it comes to the Clintons that it is impossible to ignore. Then the leaks started dropping and we got a small window in a large world of corruption. Did none of this occur to you?

iainmerrick 10y ago
Then the leaks started dropping and we got a small window in a large world of corruption. Did none of this occur to you? It seemed to me more like a very large window onto what turned out to be a pretty small world of corruption. I don't have an axe to grind but I've never seen a straight answer as to what her "crimes" supposedly are.
- talmand 10y ago
  Evidence of corruption is not necessarily evidence of a crime.
dkrich 10y ago
I'm 35 and I remember the Clinton years well. I'm curious what about my comment led you to believe that I would dismiss their well-documented "missteps" as "tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff." Sure, Bill Clinton was corrupt and a liar. He also happened to be the greatest politician that's ever run for President. There's plenty of corruption beyond what you cited. Private speeches to Goldman Sachs which HRC refused to release. Debbie Wasserman Schultz' straight-up corruption during the democratic primaries and her subverted attempts to force HRC down democrats' throats. The alleged passing of debate questions to HRC's camp in advance. The list goes on and on. And yet, I firmly believe that those things in and of themselves have little to do with why she lost. If you lived through the Bill Clinton years then you might remember that his favorability ratings were so high when he left office (after being impeached!) that it was widely believed he could have easily won a third term if he were allowed to run again. The reality is that most voters don't care about the candidates private lives. Some voters actually held Clinton in higher regard after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Voters are much more drawn to the candidate than the candidate's background or even the issues. HRC has simply never been an effective politician. Sure, she won a senate race in New York on the heels of her husband's presidency, but beyond that she's had a problem connecting with constituents in both elections. This was exactly the reason she couldn't beat Obama in '08.

iainmerrick 10y ago

Then the leaks started dropping and we got a small window in a large world of corruption. Did none of this occur to you? It seemed to me more like a very large window onto what turned out to be a pretty small world of corruption. I don't have an axe to grind but I've never seen a straight answer as to what her "crimes" supposedly are.

talmand 10y ago
Evidence of corruption is not necessarily evidence of a crime.

dkrich 10y ago

I'm 35 and I remember the Clinton years well. I'm curious what about my comment led you to believe that I would dismiss their well-documented "missteps" as "tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff." Sure, Bill Clinton was corrupt and a liar. He also happened to be the greatest politician that's ever run for President. There's plenty of corruption beyond what you cited. Private speeches to Goldman Sachs which HRC refused to release. Debbie Wasserman Schultz' straight-up corruption during the democratic primaries and her subverted attempts to force HRC down democrats' throats. The alleged passing of debate questions to HRC's camp in advance. The list goes on and on. And yet, I firmly believe that those things in and of themselves have little to do with why she lost. If you lived through the Bill Clinton years then you might remember that his favorability ratings were so high when he left office (after being impeached!) that it was widely believed he could have easily won a third term if he were allowed to run again. The reality is that most voters don't care about the candidates private lives. Some voters actually held Clinton in higher regard after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Voters are much more drawn to the candidate than the candidate's background or even the issues. HRC has simply never been an effective politician. Sure, she won a senate race in New York on the heels of her husband's presidency, but beyond that she's had a problem connecting with constituents in both elections. This was exactly the reason she couldn't beat Obama in '08.