DrmDoc

Third Way Democrats, as I understand, are centrist whose policy efforts appear more conservative than liberal leaning. On certain issues of crime and social reform, third way Democrats are not that different from Republicans. Although Willie71 chooses not to engage me, I think what he's trying to convey here is that Mrs. Clinton is likely a wolf in sheep's clothing--a conservative in the guise of a liberal. Admittedly, some of the policies her husband supported while in office were effectively Third Way (e.g., crime bill and welfare reform). Despite the rancorous Republican efforts to impeach Bill, much of his policies gain the support of his adversaries in Congress and did lead to a budget surplus by the end of his administration. If the concern is that Mrs. Clinton will not follow through with the promised social policies contrary to her probable Third Way leanings, we should take that risk as she remains the most qualified candidate and most likely to pursue the social policies favorable to our nation.

Ha!

North Carolina has actually taken steps in that direction with laws blocking the public release of police dash cam footage. Shameful.

I understand, for clarity sake, your not wanting to comment on Mrs. Clinton in relativistic or comparative terms. What you don't seem to understand is that was not the nature of my most recent post addressed to you. However, I respect your decision not to engaged me...but forgive me If occasionally I fail to disregard posts contrary to my opinion or without foundation in credible unapologetic evidence.

You seem to be asking us to read between the lines but all you've shown us are empty spaces, which is what one usually finds when asked to do so. Your commentary style suggest a deeper anger for the Clintons than any other politician in US history. Are they truly the worst of worst? Where is the real evidence other than seemingly hateful innuendo?

I still don't see how this change in topic relates to Hillary, she is certainly not the cause of the current climate of discord inspiring the BLM movement. Admittedly, I don't see how her proposals would alter the current climate particularly when we have a sitting President with the authority, popularity, and, perhaps, empathy to enact changes. However, it'd be foolish to think that Mrs. Clinton would be the lesser of our choices for POTUS given the divisive stance of her nearest competitor. There's a youthful segment of our population that will not accept the intimidations of the past or any threat to turn back the clock on their civil liberties (e.g., profiling and stop-and-frisk). It may be time for substantial changes in the training of those with the authority to take the lives of American citizens. The Lives Matter movement isn't about elevating one group of citizens over another, it's about acknowledging and changing the oppression and injustice inflicted on one group to the exclusion of all others.

I'm sorry...but how does this relate to Hillary Clinton?

I agree and the public's trust is so easily eroded. That's sad because what seems like smoke is often the fog spewed by political adversaries to negate the effectiveness of good deeds. I see...Nancy Mahon, who is senior vice-president of Estee Lauder and global executive director of the MAC AIDS Fund (Estee's charitable arm), was appointed to chairperson of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS in 2011 after donating several million to the Clinton Foundation beginning in 2008. Perhaps you can help me see through all of this, where is the direct financial benefit to either the Clintons or Estee Lauder? Are you suggesting that an executive with extensive worldwide experience in a charity effort associated with the Presidential Advisory Council on that very same effort was appointed to that council because of her company's donations rather than her experience? I, really, don't see the corruption here--who profited?

Point taken; however, back to your OP, what is your response to the counter assertions to your position that Swansont's links provide.

I selected TAR's NY Post link and reviewed the article. It's my understanding that pay-for-play results in some direct financial benefit to the politician receiving the "pay" and some government efforts directly favoring the business interests of the "for play" recipient. In every instance of alleged "pay" mentioned in that NY Post article, there was no mention of direct financial benefit to either Mrs. Clinton or her husband. In every alleged "for play" instance detailed, the business donors did not benefit nor did their businesses; however, their charities did appear to receive certain benefits in exchange for their donations. Receiving donations from charitable businesses to further the chartable efforts of those businesses in exchange for supporting the Clinton's foundations charitable interests isn't corruption--that is unless one considers transactions to further social out-reach services and programs (e.g., AIDS related programs and mirco-loans to the impoverished) at home and abroad corruption.

As CharonY post inferred, you're construing an ability as a right. In clearer terms, I may have the ability to own a gun but I do not have the right to own said gun without a license. Having an ability doesn't confer rights. Having an ability to take a life, for example, doesn't confer the right to do so. Definitively, there are no rights conferred without rule of law. I understand your perception that people are born with certain freedoms but that is just an illusion and believing otherwise is self-deception.

I'm not suggesting that your criticism of Mrs. Clinton infers your support of Trump; however, to swansont's point, your claims of corruption isn't unique to any politician because that is the perception of politics and nearly all powerful politicians in America. No politician, including Mr. Sanders, can rise to any position of political power without financial support where claims of pay-for-play or corruption can't be inferred. Claims of corruption are meritless when equal claims could be made against other politicians and when no claim of "pay" has produced actual "for play" results (e.g., voting for legislation favoring a financial supporter). Criticism of Mrs. Clinton for the perception of corruption may be fair but claims of her guilt based on perceptions are patently unfair and without merit of substantive evidence.

The only "legitimate" claim against Hillary is that she is an establishment candidate and a lot of people still have sore feelings over the primary loss of Bernie. The people who still want change will have to set aside their anger for now and decide who among their current choices for POTUS is best for our country and most likely to win. Voting for one candidate to spite another is destructively selfish and potentially harmful to the future they hope to one day establish. Sure, express your displeasure but vote your conscience.

I presume you are interested in electing the most qualified candidate for the job? Sorry, but nothing you've said renders Mrs. Clinton least qualified, though that is not your interest. If lack of truthfulness--which isn't a quality specifically unique to Mrs. Clinton--is your interest or measure, what is it about that issue that disqualifies her most. Notice I've made no reference to other candidates. Clinton's email scandal did not compromise our security, which would have be a prosecutorial offense. Mrs. Clinton's Benghazi responses were reasonable for the information she had at that time. As far as I know, prosecution of a suspected criminal (Billy Dale?) was not within Hillary's purview as Sec. of State. Just to be clear, one-sided politically inflated issues of truthfulness is insufficient evidence for disqualification.

So, is it your opinion that not being believe as truthful is a criticism unique to Mrs. Clinton that specifically renders her least qualified to be POTUS?

I agree, sharing more of the wealth is certainly a good idea but it will require a substantial change in the mindset of our electorate. The problem, as I see it, is that people generally don't have the right idea about wealth and taxes. Most of us don't understand that our government is every bit our dependent as the people we support with our wages. As our dependent, our taxes support the services, programs, and protections our government provides, which makes possible our pursuit of wealth. There's no wealth without government. The problem the wealthy appears to have with paying more taxes is that they, in my opinion, feel no obligation to invest in a system with no direct financial return on their investment. That's particularly true with the perception of fraud and waste of big government. To the wealthy, paying more taxes is like flushing money down the toilet.

Perhaps not without direct, tangible evidence, but most certainly for causes or suspicions rooted in perceived behavior not directly related to a crime. MigL-And no, DrmDoc and Ophiolite, no government can prevent you from committing a murder. I agree with what CharonY comments suggest, having an ability to do a thing isn't the same as having the right to do a thing. You have the ability to do whatever you want, but you don't have the right due to limits set by law where you reside.

I like Clinton and I like this commentary because it provides a criticism specific to Mrs. Clinton candidacy, which is her representing the status quo where some voters desire change. Donald is a departure from the status quo. However, representing the staid system is not, in my opinion, a disqualifying factor for POTUS. In America, fundamental change doesn't occur without revolution and a support of the majority. We are not yet at that stage for change. We are a capitalist society where money and personal wealth sway public opinion. Our system works as long as a majority of our businesses remain profitable. I think, a majority of the American public don't want change if it's viewed as adversely affecting their financial stability or pursuit of wealth. Money and wealth is integral to our political system, it's how the most powerful politicians get elected. We elect politicians whom we believe will best defend our way of life which, in America, is the pursuit of wealth.

I'm not suggesting that you have. As I've said, my question regarded those with criticisms unique to Mrs. Clinton that render her least qualified. Does this make Hillary least qualified in your opinion? I'm also interested in your answer to Swansont's as to whether Hillary's responsible for the actions of the DNC? It's my understanding that no evidence of collusion between Mrs. Clinton and the DNC has been found. If true, Bernie has nothing to forgive Hillary for. Granted, members may have concerns both rational and irrational and, equally, valid and invalid. If I've labeled certain opinion "minor" relative to Hillary's overall qualifications and labeled other opinions as based on political "tripe" or propaganda, I'm not infringing on their right to express and have those opinions. Criticizing an opinion isn't un-American, neither is implying a person is un-American for doing so.

That is crystal clear to me, which is why I'm still waiting for a reply to my question encompassing that very subject. Essentially, my question is what makes Mrs. Clinton least qualified? For the people who do have criticisms, I'm not interested in those we could ascribe to other candidates. I'm interested in what uniquely disqualifies Hillary for the job of President?

I don't know about Ontario, Canada but in the US, yes and yes. Our government, by way of law enforcement officers, has the right to "PREVENT" its citizens from harming other citizens. Furthermore, anyone believed or found to be plotting to commit murder can be incarcerated, which is why we have certain laws that allow us to arrest potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. In a civilized society, citizens do have certain inherent rights set and enforced by government through rule of law. No one has rights beyond those set by rule of law in the society where he or she resides and subsist. Rights without freedom from punishment are not rights, they are wrongs under the laws where punishment is a consequence. For example, North Korean citizens do not have many of the rights you and I enjoy in the west. In N. Korean society the rights we enjoy in the west are limited under their laws. In western society our rights are also limited to the laws set by our government. A violation of human rights is a violation of a set of rights agreed to by a majority of nations or a governing body of nations. Human rights are only inherent under rules of social decency set by a body of nations. If you live in a civilized society, the only inalienable rights you have are those approved by rule of law.

Perhaps I did, MigL, but you did infer a comparison between the two candidates with your Franco/Hitler example, although "Trump has his own thread." Your example was an extreme comparison suggestive of a distinction you obviously perceive between Hillary and Donald, although you claim otherwise. That distinction is whether one candidate accused of despicable behavior should not be criticized because the other is more despicable, which suggest how you perceive the furor over criticism of Hillary opposite of Trump. Any suggestion that this was not the motive behind your comparison is disingenuous. I am not suggesting that Hillary shouldn't be criticism, but I am suggesting that such criticism doesn't render her least qualified for the position of President. I'm also suggesting that those criticisms are minor given her other qualifications and that they are primarily manufactured political tripe meant to derail her candidacy.

So, he was within his rights, as a public official, to label participants in a peaceful protest as terrorists? Isn't that just a bit oxymoronic? Also, do you think he would have suffered similar consequences as a private sector employee?

In my initial post, there's a link to a Washington Post article where chief Dore is quoted as saying, "Hey Mr. Bulls--- president, When are you going to grow a f---ing pair. And tell it like it is. These are terrorist. That have declared f---ing war on my brother. (White police officers) enough is enough.” The article goes on to say those remarks were in response to police shootings allegedly by participants in the BLM movement. If I may further inquire, what is the point you see?

We had primaries. Our candidates were selected by a majority of conscientious voters in each of the major political parties. Now it's time for those same voters to make the right choice. If the nominations of Franco and Adolf we held in a democracy like ours and under the same rules as our democracy, then they would be our choices--if, of course, being the two nominated and most likely to win. However, in my opinion, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump measures quite to the extremes you've exampled.