| Final-Fan said: But I mean ... let's say, for the sake of argument, that this money convinced Clinton not to take action against the Russian deal (while other people independently approved it). That would be extremely bad. But Trump set up a fake university to scam people out of money. Then he bribed a district attorney not to press charges (campaign donation right as the decision whether to press the investigation forward was taking place, IIRC the attorney was the one to ask for the money but he still gave it). There is literally a scandal breaking RIGHT NOW about illegally breaking the embargo that was on Cuba for decades (although the embargo was just recently lifted this took place many years ago). The only reason Clinton looks like she is in the same galaxy as Trump when it comes to corruption is that the light has been shining on her a lot harder. I agree that the light should shine hard. But it's exposing a lot more on Trump. |
That's a good test, and at the end of the day we come to a subjective opinion, based on our values and assessments. So, for the case you describe I reason the following way. Both candidates prove that they are basically bad people. In term of scale, Clinton is way bigger. Favoring a sometime hostile foreign country for critical resources access is not comparable to the small impact of spending 70.000$ in Cuba, or scaming hundred of people.I tend to think a business man has much less morale resonsibility than a public servant. My mother was a tax inspector, incorruptible and proud to be. I blame the corrupted over the corruptor, so again I say that Clinton is worst. The risk that Trump get corrupted is relatively high, we also don't really know his business ties and obligations. But he didn't get so much funding from wall street, and he does not seem to have an organized system. Hillary is already corrupted for sure, by foreign interest. In this case, I prefer risk and change over certainty. What would be your reasonning that makes Clinton better in this case ?
