By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Norris2k on 01 October 2016
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:

We're going to have to just disagree on what constitutes "trolling" by a moderator in a debate. 

I don't really know why you are seeing corruption there.  To me, "I took their money to give a speech" and "I took their money to give a vote" are 100% different things.  The reason people got up in arms about it is because they wanted to see what exactly she was saying because they thought there might be some really juicy statements in there.  "I love you Goldman Sachs, keep it up, you're the best!"  Politically damaging but not corrupt. 

On Iraq:  the whole fight is about "who supported going to war and who opposed going to war", so the reasons she gave at the time for the vote are actually significant.  It doesn't let her off the hook by any means but it's different from saying she was in the front of the pack growling for war.  And for the same reason, Trump's false claims about publicly opposing the war are significant, and the fact that he is now playing up the supposed content of these private conversations should be treated with great suspicion for the same reason.  Even with corroboration from Hannity, I believe it wouldn't be the first time Sean Hannity's memories slanted the way he would like them to have been.  (E.g. Trump says a lot of things and Sean Hannity chooses to remember the right ones.)  Maybe I'm wrong about that; there are several pundits of his type out there and I don't know him, specifically, particularly well. 

As far as "quantity vs. quality", there is plenty to go after Trump for there too.  Advocating going to war over being taunted.  Thinking that attacking the military forces of another country wouldn't mean going to war.  The emails:  the FBI concluded that Clinton did not break the law.  She acted stupidly and arrogantly in a way that she should not have that nevertheless did not break the law.  At worst that makes her no worse than the way Trump seems to do business routinely.  I mean, with the number of times she's been investigated by Republicans over the course of DECADES, intensifying greatly over the last few years with Benghazi, don't you think they would have been happy to find lawbreaking? 

Sorry, that's an interesting debate but I'm a little bit short in time, so I'll focus on the last part.

About Clinton not breaking the law... I don't dismiss Trump said a good number of stupid or worrying things, that he has character flaws that are risky, that he did not prepare the debate enough and failed it, and I understand it's a problem enough for a lot of people to not only not vote for him, but also to not want him elected. So, don't dismiss Clinton is utterly crooked. Al Capone has a 30+ body count, he was known as the crime boss of Chicago, had many illegal business, and the only law he was ever been proved to break is tax laws, that just happens, proving is hard.

It's not by accident Clinton has been investigated for decades. Regarding FBI investigation, she had a server, lied about her understanding of confidential, she get a request to give data she just deleted the data, she get immunity for the 5 persons of her staff that deleted and lied, the immunity is not left despite they do not cooperate (some lies were proven), they have many elements that should lead not to a charge but to a prosecution, and they just do nothing. One of the reason why they can't prove anything is because a lot was deleted and everyone that could be convicted get immunity. Look at that if you have time.

She get millions for her or her foundation from the worst companies, worst countries, at time where some investigations, some deal are going on, and she just take it all. Look at just one case. Russia begin negociating to get a stake in Uranium One, and then the money start to flow to Clinton Foundation. Can you prove that Clinton did anything wrong ? Probably not. But Uranium One are not fools, they give 8 millions at this very time, and that is to get something. There is a conflict of interest because she is involved with the bid to approve the deal. She should not take the money, but she takes it. Bill Clinton also get 500.000 dollars for a speech in Moscow from a bank tied with government. And the deal is done, approved by the commity of foreign investment. Just look at it, that is disgusting. And that's why she is not 50 points ahead, she is terribly corrupted.