4 ms·

Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?

by naaaaak 10y ago

ftrflyr 10y ago
Yes. It seems liberals still haven't learned anything from this past round of finger pointing and self deprecating behavior.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
id 10y ago
The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. Trump is undeniably more corrupt, less trustworthy and has no experience whatsoever. It shows everyday. She on the other hand was actually a decent candidate with a lot of experience and few scandals.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. You can say the same thing about the Democratic smear campaign against Trump. Clinton was somebody who was complacent, part of the existing political machine, and ran on a divisive platform that marginalized 25% of the electorate. Plus it didn't help that she ran the gender card into the ground and got out campaigned by political neophytes in both major parties in the biggest campaign in the world.
  - facetube 10y ago
    False equivalence. Clinton did not insist against all evidence that climate change is a Chinese hoax and the president is a foreign ineligible immigrant.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Trump did not try to paper over sexual improprieties by his spouse, make real estate investments of questionable legality, or handle emails improperly while sitting secretary of state, OR allow an american diplomat to get killed in Bengazi. What's your point? Clinton screwed up in not exactly the same way?
      - facetube 10y ago
        Clinton lost the election. This is about Donald Trump, who has presided over sexual improprieties, encouraged violence at political rallies, denigrated POWs, appointed his son in law to an influential position, failed to eliminate international conflicts of interest, claimed climate science is a "Chinese hoax", advocated an invasion of North Korea, and lied to the American people repeatedly (birtherism, voter fraud claims, inauguration photos). He is unfit for the presidency.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        You're missing the points. Both parties have run huge smear campaigns, and no matter who won, there would have been huge stains on their reputations. Almost every single thing you've said can be applied to Clinton. She's defended a sexual predator, written off 25% of United States citizens as stupid, failed to eliminate domestic conflicts of interest, used a private email server and deleted emails, destroyed the relations between the sexes, and presided over the death of a diplomat. She is unfit for the presidency.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Trump is undeniably more corrupt, Undeniably? Why do you say "undeniably". Almost half the country disagrees with that I think. Not saying he is not corrupt, but I wouldn't go with "undeniably" here.
  - id 10y ago
    Won't release his tax returns, appointed an administration full of bankers, CEOs and even family members (nepotism). Didn't cut ties with his company. Mayor intelligence agencies are investigating his relationship to Russia.
    - rdtsc 10y ago
      > Won't release his tax returns, How does that show undeniable corruption. He is not legally required to release those. It is suspicious, yes. I wish he did, but because he didn't doesn't mean there is undeniable corruption. There might be corruption but it is pretty deniable > appointed an administration full of bankers, CEOs and even family members (nepotism). And Hillary got paid $200k for speeches to the same CEOs and bankers... She appealed to Occupy Wall St. kids in public and also Wall St. That's pretty interesting I think and afraid one of the reason she lost. > and even family members (nepotism) True. But Clinton appointed Hillary the head head of the health task force. That is far worse nepotism. She wasn't qualified and it was a waste and a failure. > Mayor intelligence agencies are investigating his relationship to Russia. And Hillary has been investigated by FBI since ... forever? The start of her campaign at least. All brought on by her own misjudgment to use a private email server. Which ended up with Top Secret classified material on it. But the list goes on with Hillary. * For example rigging Palestinian election: " we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” or in her own words: https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 * Took $1m bribe from Qatar after she new it was funding ISIS https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396 "- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011." You might say it is because Qatar was deeply concerned about AIDS in the world. And it might be believable except that as soon as the election was lost, Clinton Foundation donations dropped. That is very unexpected as clearly Hillary and her family will now have a lot more time to refocus on charity. Many people might call that whole setup "corruption" and "pay to play". * Even during the campaign she could not win honestly and had Donna Brazil pass questions to her for the debates. Why? That is ridiculously stupid. She didn't have to cheat. She could have just let Trump talk and bury himself. * Now also in case there is still doubt about the purpose of many of those "charitable foundations". Doug Band clearly articulates how the "bread is buttered" so to speak: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240 (see doc attachment) The list goes on. Unlike claims against Trump these are pretty undeniable. Unless we think these emails are doctored and not original. But I think they are and most people think they are.
stephancoral 10y ago
Lol you mean the candidate that got more votes than Trump?

Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?

by naaaaak 10y ago

Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?

ftrflyr 10y ago

Yes. It seems liberals still haven't learned anything from this past round of finger pointing and self deprecating behavior.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

id 10y ago

The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. Trump is undeniably more corrupt, less trustworthy and has no experience whatsoever. It shows everyday. She on the other hand was actually a decent candidate with a lot of experience and few scandals.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> The GOP smear campaign was so successful that even many liberals went along with it. You can say the same thing about the Democratic smear campaign against Trump. Clinton was somebody who was complacent, part of the existing political machine, and ran on a divisive platform that marginalized 25% of the electorate. Plus it didn't help that she ran the gender card into the ground and got out campaigned by political neophytes in both major parties in the biggest campaign in the world.
- facetube 10y ago
  False equivalence. Clinton did not insist against all evidence that climate change is a Chinese hoax and the president is a foreign ineligible immigrant.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Trump did not try to paper over sexual improprieties by his spouse, make real estate investments of questionable legality, or handle emails improperly while sitting secretary of state, OR allow an american diplomat to get killed in Bengazi. What's your point? Clinton screwed up in not exactly the same way?
    - facetube 10y ago
      Clinton lost the election. This is about Donald Trump, who has presided over sexual improprieties, encouraged violence at political rallies, denigrated POWs, appointed his son in law to an influential position, failed to eliminate international conflicts of interest, claimed climate science is a "Chinese hoax", advocated an invasion of North Korea, and lied to the American people repeatedly (birtherism, voter fraud claims, inauguration photos). He is unfit for the presidency.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        You're missing the points. Both parties have run huge smear campaigns, and no matter who won, there would have been huge stains on their reputations. Almost every single thing you've said can be applied to Clinton. She's defended a sexual predator, written off 25% of United States citizens as stupid, failed to eliminate domestic conflicts of interest, used a private email server and deleted emails, destroyed the relations between the sexes, and presided over the death of a diplomat. She is unfit for the presidency.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
rdtsc 10y ago
> Trump is undeniably more corrupt, Undeniably? Why do you say "undeniably". Almost half the country disagrees with that I think. Not saying he is not corrupt, but I wouldn't go with "undeniably" here.
- id 10y ago
  Won't release his tax returns, appointed an administration full of bankers, CEOs and even family members (nepotism). Didn't cut ties with his company. Mayor intelligence agencies are investigating his relationship to Russia.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    > Won't release his tax returns, How does that show undeniable corruption. He is not legally required to release those. It is suspicious, yes. I wish he did, but because he didn't doesn't mean there is undeniable corruption. There might be corruption but it is pretty deniable > appointed an administration full of bankers, CEOs and even family members (nepotism). And Hillary got paid $200k for speeches to the same CEOs and bankers... She appealed to Occupy Wall St. kids in public and also Wall St. That's pretty interesting I think and afraid one of the reason she lost. > and even family members (nepotism) True. But Clinton appointed Hillary the head head of the health task force. That is far worse nepotism. She wasn't qualified and it was a waste and a failure. > Mayor intelligence agencies are investigating his relationship to Russia. And Hillary has been investigated by FBI since ... forever? The start of her campaign at least. All brought on by her own misjudgment to use a private email server. Which ended up with Top Secret classified material on it. But the list goes on with Hillary. * For example rigging Palestinian election: " we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” or in her own words: https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 * Took $1m bribe from Qatar after she new it was funding ISIS https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396 "- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011." You might say it is because Qatar was deeply concerned about AIDS in the world. And it might be believable except that as soon as the election was lost, Clinton Foundation donations dropped. That is very unexpected as clearly Hillary and her family will now have a lot more time to refocus on charity. Many people might call that whole setup "corruption" and "pay to play". * Even during the campaign she could not win honestly and had Donna Brazil pass questions to her for the debates. Why? That is ridiculously stupid. She didn't have to cheat. She could have just let Trump talk and bury himself. * Now also in case there is still doubt about the purpose of many of those "charitable foundations". Doug Band clearly articulates how the "bread is buttered" so to speak: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240 (see doc attachment) The list goes on. Unlike claims against Trump these are pretty undeniable. Unless we think these emails are doctored and not original. But I think they are and most people think they are.

stephancoral 10y ago

Lol you mean the candidate that got more votes than Trump?