Willie71

Sarcastic, condescending reply. Going to cry mysogyny next? No use replying to this beyond pointing out the intellectual dishonesty. Are you part of correct the record? No one can be that blind to at minimum the appearance of conflict of interest in the Clintons, and that is being very soft and generous. Everyone does it. Biden and Warren have been taking money from middle eastern tyrants or dictators in Africa?

There are many criticisms of the Clinton foundation being not much more than money laundering and pay to play. At first I thought it was just right wing smears, but the evidence is stronger than that. I think this is the main reason Clinton set up a private e-mail server, and I strongly suspect there will be an e-mail leak before the election with much stronger evidence of pay to play. No this is not proof of anything, but there is enough evidence to form a hypothesis worth testing. I know from my own history of looking into things that when there is this much pointing in one direction, there is almost always something to it. Remember when people like me said the DNC was putting its thumb on the scales? Some kept demanding to see the evidence. Even after the resignations and apology, some still claim there was no wrongdoing. I'm also not a fan of the "well, everyone else does it" argument. It's still wrong. Didn't your parents ask you if your friends jumped off a bridge, if you thought you should too? Criticizing Clinton isn't illegitimate just because the whole system is rotten.

What is it with Clinton supporters and their inability to accept that people are critical of Hillary independent of having hurt feelings from the primaries? Is it the argument from incredulity, or some sort of projection? In the era of bought out corporate media, and partisan independent media, the "truth" can be elusive. We do the best we can based on sources we trust, trying to filter out the crap. Some are so sure that their sources that say Clinton is fine are presenting the unbiased truth, but cannot accept that there might be some whitewashing going on. How can you be so sure? I am just as critical of those believing the Benghazi crap, or the gun grabbing crap. There is, however, pretty compelling evidence that at least sipuggests a pretty possible/probable level of corruption, pay to play, and allegiance to moneyed interests. It takes pretty strong blinders to explain it all away. Nothing conclusive, but if there was that much suggestion someone's spouse was cheating, we would tell them to at least be cautious, and vigilant. I'm not making an argument regarding who is worse, Trump or Clinton. I'm simply discussing the topic of the OP, Clinton on her own merits. I'll get it out of the way. Trump is worse.

I would have agreed if it was anyone but Clinton. Cooperating with Clinton would be political suicide after the decades long witch hunt. No self respecting republican could cooperate with Clinton without having to endure an exorcism afterwards.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. We all know much of Clinton's image problem is from bs smears, but the country is much more anti establishment this election than any time in the last 30 years. Some of the smears are legitimate though. Clinton is a pro establishment third way democrat. If that was the country wanted, she would be unbeatable. That's not the desired candidate this election.

There are two lines of thinking here. One is talking about Clinton, her real or perceived flaws, low favourability, and perception of being the face of corruption, whether real or not, and the truth is somewhere between, she is Satan, and the criticisms are just mysogyny. The second line of thinking is who is better, Donald or Hillary? Somehow Donald being worse is a free pass for Clinton.

I hit the down button by accident when I meant to hit the up vote. My apologies. Can a mod fix this please?

On conservative leaning forums, there are people minimizing the Trump concerns, and talking about how they don't understand how anyone could criticize trump when a Clinton presidency is the risk. The limited ability to understand the apologetics on both sides is concerning, as each is using the argument from incredulity. There are a great many people who are doing the exact same things but saying a trump is a loose cannon, but how could you risk a Clinton presidency. It's the same thing we see here, so I don't support that error on either side of the equation. When your campaign is based on "you can't expect anything reasonable, because that's the way it is, but the other guy is even worse." you are gambling with minimizing voter suppression to minimize the impact of gerrymandering, and calculating minimum acceptible risk with the electoral college and swing states.

So you support safe spaces then. Simple, isn't it?

Stop and frisk in NY was over 90% black. Predatory ticketing in Ferguson was over 90% black. Just two examples. Is there any doubt that blacks would get caught with nonviolent offences more often than whites? Based on the number of convictions per capita based on proportion of those stopped, whites commit crimes at much higher rates than blacks.

If there are exceptions and the "safe spaces" are not what they are supposed to be, such as insulating people from uncomfortable ideas, then they wouldn't be supported by me. I'm much less supportive of trigger warnings. Students should read the syllabus and have some idea what the course is about. If they need counselling for trauma, maybe they should engage that too, either before going to school, or simultaneously. Our universities offer free counselling to students. And assault/verbal abuse doesn't pose health risks?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/money-laundering-and-the-drug-trade-the-role-of-the-banks/5334205

Well, the DEA and one of the big banks laundering money for cartels suggests more than not having resources to fix it, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/world/americas/us-drug-agents-launder-profits-of-mexican-cartels.html

"Usually practised?" How do you know this?

Clinton is a third way democrat. I've linked what that is about previously. We disagree with the republican lite policies. People supporting Clinton were against Reagan, and economically, they aren't that different. We don't believe Clinton is good for the world economy, or foreign relations. I have repeated over and over that I don't support trump. Why do you keep conflating that? If Clinton loses, she loses for being unlikeable, secretive, corrupt, and establishment. Even if she's no different from others like her, she has a public relations issue, and the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the primaries, and they may lose the election because of this. That is on the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They knew she has been attacked for decades, and was unliked, but they thought they could push her through. From the last e-mail leak, even Obama and Powell wouldn't be disappointed if she loses this because she is so damaged.She's not liked. Whether deserved or not, that is the reality.

I didn't say it was right. It was less about religion, and more about politics. That was my point.

This is what a safe space is supposed to be: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space Tampitump, it seems you are arguing that harassment and abuse are more desired?

I personally have acknowledged your positions several times. Presenting a right wing talking point which has logical inconsistencies will be challenged. Your understanding of what safe spaces are or why they exist is innacurate. If they were what you said they were, they would not be supported. They aren't what you believe they are, so you are being challenged.

It's not sheltering them from criticism, it's sheltering them from violations of their rights or abuse. I think the need for safe spaces is related to differences in culture from even a generation or two ago. We are always connected now, and cyber bullying is a very real thing. Additionally, there is a decrease in empathy amongst youth, and a significant one at that. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/

I'll be honest. This to me is very insulting. The differences between Clinton and Sanders are stark, and it's not hurt feelings that influence my decisions. It's funny how rhetoric pushed by the MSM gets repeated as if it were true. I don't know of anyone who has "hurt feelings" as if we were children on a school ground. It's a dismissive statement and further alienates the people who had the good sense to support sanders in the first place.

I think the lack of policy discussion stems from the belief, whether right or wrong, that Clinton will lie through her teeth to get into the White House, then not follow through with the platform. Yes, people think trump will do whatever comes into his mind if he wins, with no regard to campaign policies either.

I think it was Hitchens.

Please watch this video. It's about Syria before and after the war. Looked like a relatively modern society before the war. Again, the Middle East isn't a bunch of guys in tents with camels in the desert. Our media refuses to show what the Middle East actually looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AaN-kUucF4 And it was a political act in retaliation for western intervention. Your point is?

From my understanding, the criticisms of Clinton is that she acts as if she's republican lite. This seems to fit the defense offered here. Is Clinton less bad than Bush II, probably the worst president in a century? Sure. Is Clinton better than trump, the most horrific candidate ever? Sure. Does she do the same terrible things on a smaller scale? Yes.

Can't they both be guilty rather than the "...but the other guys did it too!" defense?