If truth is important and people think that claims should be justified by evidence and reason, perhaps we should get to the bottom of the Hillary Clinton issue.
I have been called a “liberal hack” and told I am wrong. Fine, let me apologise in advance for any error and misinformation on my part and I am quite happy to re-evaluate my opinion.
I have searched the Internet for evidence that Hillary Clinton has been guilty of some crime as she has been described on these boards as a criminal. Even her critics who believe she probably has committed a crime seem to agree that, despite being one of the most thoroughly investigated politicians in history, she has been found guilty of NOTHING….
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Hilary-Clinton-called-a-criminal-What-has-s...
She did publish her tax returns…
The Clinton campaign made public eight years of returns — covering 2007 to 2014, essentially filling in the public record since she ran for president unsuccessfully eight years ago. As a result of the earlier campaign and her husband’s political career, the couple’s returns back to 1977 are now public.
source:
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-releases-eight-ye...
She served as a US senator for years…
“Among others, she has partnered with Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and Lindsey Graham, with whom she worked to improve healthcare for National Guard members.”
source:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/12/03/10-things-you-didnt-know...
She seems to be a consensus building politician, which is not easy in the USA today.
Her early life and career seem perfectly clean and she has been morally outraged by her husband’s behaviour, which seems typical of the essentially moral and decent person she always appeared.
I hope it is at least clear why I do not describe her as dishonest, much less as “criminal”.
Can anyone come up with anything other than seemingly endless allegations against her and suspicions about her?..
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/29-of-hillarys-scandals-the-early-years/
None of us can prove our innocence, nor should we be expected to do so. In a free-speech society, it must be very difficult to be transparently honest when under such scrutiny all one's life, and impossible to appear so to ideologues or to people who hate. This is especially true of someone with wealth and a long career. At least Hillary seems to have tried to be open and honest .
This is not an ideological or political issue. Hillary Clinton is a person and a citizen of the USA.
Many thanks for any kind contributions.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I suggest you take this question to a political forum.
I would trust a vampire werewolf before I would trust Hillary.
Not going to analyse thousands of documents, just gonna go with my gut feeling. Dishonest, but hey expect that from a career politician. Water is wet.
David, I put it here because I wanted to know why people here distrust Hillary and I rarely contribute to other forums.
".. just gonna go with my gut feeling.." and unhealthy cynicism seems to sum it up.
I was also criticised for 'cutting and pasting'. My view is that we all get our news from 'news outlets' (and given the views expressed about those one might think people would be more cautious about their conclusions). I think it best to offer at least one source of my information and I copy and paste the relevant paragraph so that people don't have to go read all the links and articles. When I offer the sources that are considered left or right wing, according to my correspondents preferences, that appears to be wrong too, at least if I suggest they aren't very well respected news outlets.
Maybe, like Ms Clinton, everything I do and say must be wrong :-)
Thanks for your replies folks.
I am with David Killens.
Political forum.
I vote for no one for no one is worthy of my vote. 'Nuff said.
rmfr
I would rather hear your reasoning than your opinion ..or anyone else's opinion.
If OP hasn't noticed there is a crisis of trust, despair and betrayal in all western democracies toward their leaders.
The majority are literally sick of a minority make decisions for them thinking they know what's best.
The evidence proves these decisions are failures, the middle class is becoming extinct.
Destroy the middle class and you destroy civilisation.
Hillary represents this degeneration.
Trump represents the antidote, that's why he got elected.
You are foolish to ignore the reasons why so many entrusted their fates to trump. So far the left have not had the courage to reflect on why why Trump got elected, they just blame & shame.
I absolutely assure you the next generation beyond these useless millenials are going to be the most conservative ever seen....quiet possibly a brutal theocracy.
I too am sick of the minority making decisions for everyone else. I am flabbergasted that the majority allows it to happen, over, and over, and over again. Ofcourse I am talking about the minority of super wealthy making decisions over the majority that are not super wealthy.
I agree, middle class is rapidly becoming extinct and a strong middle class is critical to a solid civilization.The gini coefficient in the US has rapidly swung to the worse in the last 4 decades or so. The 1 percent now control more overall wealth then the bottom 90 percent.
I sort of agree, hillary does represent some of this degeneration, probably not the first example I would pick, but I agree she is part of the problem.
I agree lots of people THINK tRump represents the antidote and that is one of the many reasons he managed to win the electoral vote. I think more people thought he was the "brick through the window" or voted for him simply because had an "R" next to his name and had Pence on his ticket.
I agree it would be foolish for anyone to ignore the reasons why so many people voted for tRump. I think some on the left have at least semi accurately reflected on how tRump got elected, but I would agree it would seem many on the left have not, and the left have/has not address/ed the issues.
I do not think millennials are useless, I think they are quite useful. I am surprised you think millennials are useless, you seem to be a tRump fan and a conservative, you have to be happy with the outcome of the 2016 elections with republicans controlling the house, senate, presidency and are also able to install more conservative supreme court justices, essentially controlling all 3 branches of the government.
You think the next generation is going to be the most conservative ever seen? To the point of a brutal theocracy? What makes you think that? I have noticed no evidence of that. Those born after the millennium are just now starting to be able to vote, how do you think the 2018 midterm elections are going to go? Do you think any of the next generation now able to vote are going to vote overwhelmingly conservative? That is contrary to every trend I ever heard of.
Does it matter?
Both Hillary and Bill belong behind bars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUUy1C0_4g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed1H-j4Wv0g
It has been discussed before about bringing up political issues on the atheist boards. I believe the admin/owner/general consensus was that bring up political debate is fine. Not everything here has to be about atheist/theist.
As far as Hillary Clinton being honest, as a human being, I would rate her has pretty dishonest. But as a politician I would rate her on the more honest side, but to me an honest politician is an oxymoron, at least since Citizens United supreme court ruling got pushed through.
Many books have been written about the dishonesty of the Clintons, the Bushes, of Obama, and certainly of tRump. I could talk with a hugely conservative/tRump supporter all day about the faults I find in Obama's presidency, Bill Clinton's presidency and of Mrs Clinton's political career. And they would happily nod along. But I can do the same with Bush and tRump.
tRump whether I or you like it or not is president today, so talking about his dishonest is probably the most relevant.
Overall, pretty much any powerful political office I would say is held by very dishonest people that do not have the masses that voted him/her into office best interest in mind. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.
I do think Bernie Sanders was far and away the best major party candidate for the masses in the last election cycle, but I could even sit and talk to you about the faults I find in Sanders.
I would say many young politicians started with good intentions in mind, but they either get beaten down and accept the corrupt system as it is and try to make a few small changes for the better, or they get flushed out there is no room in the current system for a major mover to advance the public voting masses actual best interest.
To me the real problem is the voting masses do not wish to participate or properly educate themselves on the issues at hand. The republican basic strategy of: god, guns and gays has been a very effective one. Because people are too busy or not interested in learning how to vote in their best interest. Too swayed by pithy 1 liners, and listening to what they want to hear rather than learning about the depth of the issue, and not repeating mistakes that did not work before.
I think anyone that does not realize the only folks that have gained in the last ~40 years of politics are the ones in the top 10% in wealth, with everyone else losing ground, while the super wealthy get ever richer and more powerful, at least in the USA of which its political system and economics I am most familiar with. Also mobility and ability to rise in the ranks is now largely a fanciful myth.
It is difficult to comment in a way that does not get viewed as politically partisan. However, when I live in a world with all the blatant and systematic (albeit chaotic) dishonesty of Trump and his minions is somehow shrugged off by millions as " fake news" or at worst, a normal state of affairs, I wonder if any person could ever truly be labelled "clearly dishonest".
Most presidential candidates get rated as being especially high on Machiavellian traits by pop-psychologists - I don't really doubt that general assessment, even of politicians who have done a lot of good for society.
A former Democrat President's response to the extrajudicial murder of a head of state:
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/jfk-memoir...
A would be Democrat President's response to the extrajudicial murder of a head of state:
https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y
Thanks for the soundbite Sushisnake and she does appear to delight in the death of an oppressive dictator (if you consider those legitimate heads of state). Whatever the context, she shouldn't have been laughing at anyone's death. It certainly isn't politically correct, to say the least. I think LogicFTW sums it up, though, with: "to me an honest politician is an oxymoron". Terminal Dogma said, "I would rather hear your reasoning than your opinion ..or anyone else's opinion...
If OP hasn't noticed there is a crisis of trust, despair and betrayal in all western democracies toward their leaders."
And that is the crux of the matter. I have noticed and it was the reasoning for the distrust of Ms Clinton that I was trying to obtain with minimal words from me. (Thanks again for all responses)
Hillary Clinton seems to be loved by all those who have worked with her and who know her. I don't think any of her critics would be perceived as more honest if they were in office. The USA & UK have more trouble than simply bad politicians. They do reflect the voters except for some intense voter cynicism.
I just wish to emphasise that if no politician, however well-intentioned and committed to serving the interests of the nation can be trusted, it will sometimes lead to a situation where good, intelligent people don't take part in politics or become corrupted precisely due to how they are constantly attacked and distrusted. The UK had the case of a Scottish Minister who had a marvellous career as a public servant and philanthropist only to throw it away to a hidden camera and some politically disastrous remarks. There are lots of MPs in the UK who gave up good careers to serve in Parliament. If good people are unreasonably distrusted and disparaged, it is our politics and Western Democracies that will suffer.
I am aware that I have not addressed the wealth inequality and may other issues. It is the fact that very honest people can have their reputations ruined and become objects of deep mistrust and even hate that is the issue that I wanted to highlight and exchange views on.
@ZeffD
"... (if you consider those legitimate heads of state). Whatever the context..."
My context is international law. Kennedy regretted it had been breached, Clinton giggled about it. Not a good look in the would-be President of the Free World.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-i...
https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/28/why-the-attack-on-libya-is-illegal/
The choice between Trump and Clinton was no choice at all, but from where I'm sitting, putting a woman who giggled about the head of a sovereign state being sodomised with a bayonet and publicly lynched in the street in charge of the most powerful military humanity's ever suffered? No thanks. I'm not convinced such a woman is a good thing for the world.
https://youtu.be/KJ1jtwEi0fU
It is typical how that one soundbite discredits Hillary Clinton's entire history and career while Trump is perceived as "not PC", which is to be considered a good thing.
What strikes me most is the amount of evidence against Ms Clinton. No wonder TerminalDogma distrusts her, if you just observe the volume of mud thrown at her. However, as we are always pointing out to religionists, quantity of evidence proves nothing if there is none of substance.
This is 20 mins long, but it makes the point that there is also the "first problem", not just the most important...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
I was particularly struck 14 mins in by the effect of gerrymandering of constituencies. (I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders but respect him personally. I think he supported such reform).
All members of a political party must agree to support policies they dislike in order to win support for those they prioritise. That is what is traditionally meant by "all politicians lie", as opposed to a modern meaning which appears to consider all politicians liars.
I think the USA has structural problems, as well as those of fake news and a readiness of the electorate to value honest people no more than egotists. The UK suffers some similar problems but won't vote for obviously dishonourable people.