Hillary Clinton

[swansont]

Hilary, Biden, Obama, Warren... to name a few.

They've posted in this thread? Or somewhere else on SFN?

[tar]

No, they haven't posted on this thread, as far as I know. Do you know their Scienceforum names?

[rangerx]

Neither Hilary or her supporters can imagine their political rivals as being good people, with good intentions, capability and love of country and what the country stands for.

 

Deriding pigeon-holing by pigeon-holing. The irony.

 

I'm not American, but would support Hillary if I was, apparently I'm incapable of tolerating your views by default.

 

I'm sorry tar, I've respected and defended your postings in the past, but the quoted statement is divisive and alienating.

 

[swansont]

No, they haven't posted on this thread, as far as I know. Do you know their Scienceforum names?

How would I? People often use pseudonyms.

 

My point is that we are the ones having the discussion. You aren't, as far as I know, running for office, so you don't have the excuse of using the hyperbole of a politician. If you make a claim here, you're expected to back it up. So back them up.

[Phi for All]

Hyperbole works in politics because it appeals to impassioned concerns. People who feel very strongly about an issue often feel excused from making reasoned arguments because they care so darn much more than anyone else. They think it's OK to go overboard, or exaggerate, or include everyone in an argument. Evidence is ignored, innuendo is embraced, and biases prevent them from diminishing ignorance.

 

I prefer to be informed so I can make informed decisions about what stance is right for an issue. That way I can be impassioned about the stance, not the issue itself. Waving your arms in the air, complaining about what's going on isn't as effective as deciding what stance is going to bring about the outcome you want (hopefully that's also what the country needs), and standing up for that.

[CharonY]

Delta1212,

 

My argument is not for me personally, only, it is for all the people that are reduced to garbage in someone's mind, because a bad label has been placed on them, and they have, I have, you have many redeeming social characteristics, that would suggest we should not be thrown in the garbage.

This board has a bias against religious people because some are deniers of fact, and are creationists, and association is made with stupid people, with deniers of global warming, with KKK, with Fox news, with homophobes, racists, Republicans, Xenophobes, Misogynists, Racists, and any other labels that fit in the basket of deplorables.

 

My arguments are purely from the fact that there are deplorable people that vote democrat as well. Drug addicts, rapists, criminals, child pornographers, gang members, union hit men, or whatever, which do not indict the whole organization, nor half its members.

 

Straw men arguments against republican policies are fair, because the whole group is so hateful and stupid, you can't go wrong calling them the devil. (right?)

 

But say a few things that align oneself with anything that was ever mentioned by a Republican, and suddenly you are spouting Fox talking points, and using all sorts of invalid logic.

 

My points are not that I take offense at being called a racist, when I am not, my point is that there is a bias on this board against so many different capable, loving people, that fall into the basket of deplorables in one way or another, that there is nobody left, to run the country.

 

That is, if you add up all the people the Democrats hate, and all the people the Republicans hate you have more people worthy of hate, then you have people worthy of the benefit of the doubt, and worthy of ones love and support.

 

Which leads me to consider it better to think of the other U.S. Citizen as on your side, no matter what, than to look for ways to prove them wrong.

 

I defend myself against incorrect character assassination attempts as a proxy for everyone else that deserves your love and support, and do not deserve you contempt.

 

Regards, TAR

 

At the least, one should consider a deplorable person as a charity case, that deserves your pity. There is absolutely no reason to love a leper and hate a republican. We have families and bleed red same as any other American.

 

What I am wondering is why you would generalize a group and then ask that for a different group one should have a much more detailed and fine-grained view. Is it possible that you think that a group you belong to is being treated unfairly as you have a much deeper knowledge and connection to it, whereas you are fine to use a broad brush when it is outside your own experience? Have you noticed, for example, how you have repeatedly characterized black folks or Muslims? And how you brush off calls for a more detailed view (e.g. in light of stop and frisk or similar policies) by creating a narrative that somehow validates your viewpoint?

[iNow]

Funny or die

 

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b2fc974d1d/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-hillary-clinton

[Willie71]

I can't see how knowing or not knowing that label changes anything. Why do you persist in this line of discussion? I did not set the bar at having a conviction. I asked for evidence. Discussing convictions is just you, mischaracterizing the discussion. OJ, for example, went to trial there are plenty of things that were offered up as evidence.I am asking you to make me aware of legitimate concerns and criticisms. Something that's not based on propaganda (including the repeated big lie), or innuendo, or shoddy reporting. I don't see why that's an unrealistic standard. I'm not claiming any particular expertise. I'm asking a question, and you (and others) keep answering a different one. I'm not asking about Bill Clinton or Al Gore, or what the democratic party stands for. I asked what evidence there is for actual corruption on the part of Hillary. It's repeatedly claimed but never substantially supported. It's always nebulous and hand-wavy. If you are indeed more informed than me, then please reveal your sources of facts. (Not sources of opinion) I could at this point ask for details of how Hillary "embodies that more than anyone else" but given recent history I doubt I'd get a satisfactory level of detail. I'm not saying I can't hear you, I am asking why you can't or won't answer the question I asked. I'm not sure if this is a repeated accidental typo, or you are trolling, or this is an indication of your reading skills, or something else, but please carefully check my user name and compare it to what you keep writing.

You aren't even aware you conceded the debate to me, are you? It's just like demanding evidence David Duke is a racist. Affiliation or leading the KKK isn't enough evidence that he's a racist? I won't respond to any further posts of yours until you apologize and inform yourself. Pathetic. Dunning Kruget at its finest. Hopefully the other mods will step in and correct the trolling you've spewed. You really have no idea what is going on beyond the partisan headlines, do you?

Edited September 23, 2016 by Willie71

[swansont]

You aren't even aware you conceded the debate to me, are you? It's just like demanding evidence David Duke is a racist. Affiliation or leading the KKK isn't enough evidence that he's a racist?

 

Not a good example. Duke's affiliation with the KKK is well-known, and that's the evidence. But what if I had never heard of him, and you told me he was a racist? All you would have to do is find an article or two that weren't just opinion pieces. Not hard to do. Otherwise it can't be distinguished from a smear campaign. "Trust me, I know" or "It's obvious to me" doesn't cut it. I'm not willing to take your word for it.

 

I won't respond to any further posts of yours until you apologize and inform yourself. Pathetic. Dunning Kruget at its finest. Hopefully the other mods will step in and correct the trolling you've spewed. You really have no idea what is going on beyond the partisan headlines, do you?

 

I see nothing for which I should apologize. I am not trolling. I'm pretty sure you will have a hard time making the case that asking for evidence is somehow a violation of the letter or spirit of the rules. Attacking me isn't going to help your case, either. You indicate you do know what's going on behind the partisan headlines. Why won't you share that information? If it's really information rather than insinuation, that is.

———

 

For instance, if you wanted to show the Clinton foundation was not on the level, you might find some factual examples of misdeeds, such as using foundation money that's supposed to go to charity to instead purchase artwork, or "self-dealing" where Clinton profited from the actions of the foundation (maybe making outlays to settle lawsuits against her) or making illegal political donations. If you wanted to show she's unscrupulous, maybe find out that she's being sued for fraud, with enough evidence that it's proceeding to trial. Or that she continually hires people and then refuses to pay them, and they have to sue to get any money at all. Actual examples; something like these hypotheticals.

[Ten oz]

No, connected to iNow's post of Hilary's plan to end poverty in the inner cities.

And further connected to an earlier charge of mine that Hilary backs the black lives matter cause as a pander to the voting block, and she blames cops for racism, when she should be praising them for enforcing the law.

The president of the U.S. is chief law enforcement officer. If she is going to go into office with an agenda of cleaning up the police departments of the county, and not with an agenda of making the inner cities safe for law abiding citizens, I would call that a disadvantage, pertaining to the OP.

Law Enforcement depts are run locally. Just has different states and cities have different laws so do law enforcement departments in different localities receive different training. The POTUS is not incharge of that.

 

As for making inner cities safe (dog whistle term for black community) I believe there is a lot of exaggeration about how dangerous and bad they are. The murder rate in the U.S. is down by over half from the70's, 80's and 90's. It averaged 9 per 100k for those 3 decades and is currently at 4.5 per 100k. Black on black murder has followed that national trend. Black on black murder was a horrifying 40 per 100k in the 90's and today is 17 per 100k and been dropping every year for the over a decade. While there is still a ways to go the notion that things have never been worse or that no progress is being made is just a complete lie. High School graduation rates in the black community are at an all time high as is college attendance. Republicans demagogue the black community as a means of claim democratic leaders have failed but the position is very exaggerated. There has been a lot of progress and things are trending in the right direction.

 

During the primary you conceded that Trump was a bigot, his supporters crazy, and said you would not vote for him. You said if Trump or Cruz got the nomination you'd "resort to your democratic roots". Has that changed?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/high-school-graduation-rate-hits-all-time-high-82-percent-finish-on-time/2015/12/15/4211457a-a335-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html

[Phi for All]

You aren't even aware you conceded the debate to me, are you? It's just like demanding evidence David Duke is a racist. Affiliation or leading the KKK isn't enough evidence that he's a racist? I won't respond to any further posts of yours until you apologize and inform yourself. Pathetic. Dunning Kruget at its finest. Hopefully the other mods will step in and correct the trolling you've spewed. You really have no idea what is going on beyond the partisan headlines, do you?

 

It probably won't help, coming from me, but I think you're waaaaay out of line here. I'm involved like Tom is, so it's not my call, but I can tell you that posts like this fall within my definition of trolling, where swansont's do not. It's not unreasonable to demand evidence for extraordinary claims.

 

As for making inner cities safe (dog whistle term for black community) I believe there is a lot of exaggeration about how dangerous and bad they are. The murder rate in the U.S. is down by over half from the70's, 80's and 90's. It averaged 9 per 100k for those 3 decades and is currently at 4.5 per 100k. Black on black murder has followed that national trend. Black on black murder was a horrifying 40 per 100k in the 90's and today is 17 per 100k and been dropping every year for the over a decade. While there is still a ways to go the notion that things have never been worse or that no progress is being made is just a complete lie. High School graduation rates in the black community are at an all time high as is college attendance. Republicans demagogue the black community as a means of claim democratic leaders have failed but the position is very exaggerated. There has been a lot of progress and things are trending in the right direction.

 

I'm concerned that Clinton won't address the relationship between the media, the mega-corps, and politics. Recently I was told by a reliable source about a small local disaster he'd been involved in. First responders swooped in within 3 minutes, assessed the situation, made sure the public was made safe, cordoned off the area, did everything you could want them to do. By the time the press showed up two hours later (late from covering a local political rally), the situation was well in hand.

 

However, the news crew went on to stage themselves as arriving in the middle of chaos and turmoil, and made it seem like nobody knew exactly what was going on, that information was coming in slowly, painting a picture of negligence and inept handling of a potentially dangerous situation. The whole thing was a fabrication. The head of the emergency crew could have told them exactly what was going on if they had bothered to track him down and ask him.

 

I'm livid about this. I've made it known before, I consider accurately informing the American public of what's going on to be more important to homeland security than anything TSA has ever done for us. I consider this kind of for-profit journalism criminal, and I don't see much difference between this and any traitor deceiving the nation with lies and deceit.

[waitforufo]

Recently I was told by a reliable source about a small local disaster he'd been involved in. First responders swooped in within 3 minutes, assessed the situation, made sure the public was made safe, cordoned off the area, did everything you could want them to do. By the time the press showed up two hours later (late from covering a local political rally), the situation was well in hand.

 

However, the news crew went on to stage themselves as arriving in the middle of chaos and turmoil, and made it seem like nobody knew exactly what was going on, that information was coming in slowly, painting a picture of negligence and inept handling of a potentially dangerous situation. The whole thing was a fabrication. The head of the emergency crew could have told them exactly what was going on if they had bothered to track him down and ask him.

 

I'm livid about this. I've made it known before, I consider accurately informing the American public of what's going on to be more important to homeland security than anything TSA has ever done for us. I consider this kind of for-profit journalism criminal, and I don't see much difference between this and any traitor deceiving the nation with lies and deceit.

The media is in the business of selling soap. To do that "news" reporting has to be entertaining. If it is not entertaining, it has to be made so. It's the circus part of bread and circuses. It's only going to get worse.

[Phi for All]

The media is in the business of selling soap. To do that "news" reporting has to be entertaining. If it is not entertaining, it has to be made so. It's the circus part of bread and circuses. It's only going to get worse.

 

There used to be a conscious effort towards ethical journalism. I certainly don't mind the media making money selling things, but information necessary to keep the People informed shouldn't be distributed using business models. We don't need growth in news reporting; we need accuracy and impartiality. To get anything other than growth and profit, you need a different model. I see Hillary as too much of a capitalist to allow broadening our public options, so I'm not sure this relationship will improve under Clinton.

[Ten oz]

I'm concerned that Clinton won't address the relationship between the media, the mega-corps, and politics. Recently I was told by a reliable source about a small local disaster he'd been involved in. First responders swooped in within 3 minutes, assessed the situation, made sure the public was made safe, cordoned off the area, did everything you could want them to do. By the time the press showed up two hours later (late from covering a local political rally), the situation was well in hand.

 

However, the news crew went on to stage themselves as arriving in the middle of chaos and turmoil, and made it seem like nobody knew exactly what was going on, that information was coming in slowly, painting a picture of negligence and inept handling of a potentially dangerous situation. The whole thing was a fabrication. The head of the emergency crew could have told them exactly what was going on if they had bothered to track him down and ask him.

 

I'm livid about this. I've made it known before, I consider accurately informing the American public of what's going on to be more important to homeland security than anything TSA has ever done for us. I consider this kind of for-profit journalism criminal, and I don't see much difference between this and any traitor deceiving the nation with lies and deceit.

We (the people) have to want it. Politicians are handicapped by the fact they need our vote. If MLK had been a national candidate for office he wouldn't have been so successful. We all know, have known for years cable news isn't real newsand that many blogs just preach to the choir. Social media and our character limited love of text has amplified the problem. As consumers and voters we must demand better. Our leaders are limited by our willingness to educate ourselves. We let them down much as they let us down. Could Al Gore have run a better campaign, sure. We also could have done a better good supporting him and acting like we believed it mattered.

[ydoaPs]

How would I? People often use pseudonyms.

 

My point is that we are the ones having the discussion. You aren't, as far as I know, running for office, so you don't have the excuse of using the hyperbole of a politician. If you make a claim here, you're expected to back it up. So back them up.

Some people use their names instead of silly scenarios about Swans being all jacked up on Tea.

[Willie71]

Peace out. Swansort admitted she didn't know what a third way democrat is, and I provided a reference going over 30 years of this history, with the Clintons being at the forefront. I am still accused of not Substantiating my claim? I have referred to Ortel's expose as well as Abby Martin's. All of this is verifiable through multiple sources. I pride myself on not saying stupid shit, and looking back over my history, you can see I have very few neg reps, less than I have received from people in the last couple days. It amazed me that my statements are seen as extraordinary claims, when it is mainstream knowledge to anyone with more than a passing interest in American politics.

Not a good example. Duke's affiliation with the KKK is well-known, and that's the evidence. But what if I had never heard of him, and you told me he was a racist? All you would have to do is find an article or two that weren't just opinion pieces. Not hard to do. Otherwise it can't be distinguished from a smear campaign. "Trust me, I know" or "It's obvious to me" doesn't cut it. I'm not willing to take your word for it.

 

 

 

I see nothing for which I should apologize. I am not trolling. I'm pretty sure you will have a hard time making the case that asking for evidence is somehow a violation of the letter or spirit of the rules. Attacking me isn't going to help your case, either. You indicate you do know what's going on behind the partisan headlines. Why won't you share that information? If it's really information rather than insinuation, that is.———

 

For instance, if you wanted to show the Clinton foundation was not on the level, you might find some factual examples of misdeeds, such as using foundation money that's supposed to go to charity to instead purchase artwork, or "self-dealing" where Clinton profited from the actions of the foundation (maybe making outlays to settle lawsuits against her) or making illegal political donations. If you wanted to show she's unscrupulous, maybe find out that she's being sued for fraud, with enough evidence that it's proceeding to trial. Or that she continually hires people and then refuses to pay them, and they have to sue to get any money at all. Actual examples; something like these hypotheticals.

You are aware of the bad decisions in Haiti, or what's going on in Africa, right?

 

Have you looked up third way democrat yet?

[Phi for All]

I pride myself on not saying stupid shit, and looking back over my history, you can see I have very few neg reps, less than I have received from people in the last couple days. It amazed me that my statements are seen as extraordinary claims, when it is mainstream knowledge to anyone with more than a passing interest in American politics.

 

A different perspective: the negative reputation isn't so much for your claims as for how nasty and non-typically uncivil you're being about hammering home your point. You seem unhinged, sir.

[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.

[swansont]

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.

 

Thanks.

 

Unless the defining characteristic of a third-way democrat is that they necessarily engage in illegal corruption, it would seem that this is irrelevant to my inquiry. I just want to know why she's labeled as corrupt. If there's evidence, what is it? If not, and she merely plays the game as everyone else, and/or it's the system that's corrupt, then it just seems like propaganda.

 

Peace out. Swansort admitted she didn't know what a third way democrat is, and I provided a reference going over 30 years of this history, with the Clintons being at the forefront. I am still accused of not Substantiating my claim? I have referred to Ortel's expose as well as Abby Martin's. All of this is verifiable through multiple sources. I pride myself on not saying stupid shit, and looking back over my history, you can see I have very few neg reps, less than I have received from people in the last couple days. It amazed me that my statements are seen as extraordinary claims, when it is mainstream knowledge to anyone with more than a passing interest in American politics.

 

You are aware of the bad decisions in Haiti, or what's going on in Africa, right?

Have you looked up third way democrat yet?

Still calling me Swansort, I see. Do you simply not read my posts, or do you not understand what you read? Was I unclear, but you chose to proceed anyway, without asking for clarification? I don't see a another option.

 

I am not particularly interested in your substantiating that Clinton is a third way democrat. I DON'T CARE. I asked a question, and this doesn't answer it, but you keep pretending that it does. How does Clinton being a third way democrat prove she engages in illegal corruption?

 

And no, I have not purchased the book you linked to; I have not read it

[DrmDoc]

Thanks.

 

Unless the defining characteristic of a third-way democrat is that they necessarily engage in illegal corruption, it would seem that this is irrelevant to my inquiry. I just want to know why she's labeled as corrupt. If there's evidence, what is it? If not, and she merely plays the game as everyone else, and/or it's the system that's corrupt, then it just seems like propaganda.

 

 

I agree, he seems to be vilifying Hillary for her political leanings rather than real evidence of corruption. His reason, I think, is evident in a few prior posts where I believe he might have mentioned his strong socialist affinity--which isn't necessarily an indictment of his opinion but is very suggestive of the source of his aversion to conservative leaning politicians.

[Willie71]

A different perspective: the negative reputation isn't so much for your claims as for how nasty and non-typically uncivil you're being about hammering home your point. You seem unhinged, sir.

I'll accept that, even if I don't agree. I feel the opposing side of the debate has been patronizing and sarcastic, but should strive to be better than that. I will be better. This seems to me to be a parallel to climate denial discussion. One side finds none of the evidence acceptable, and presents an unrealistic standard to meet, ignoring each piece of the picture that hints in the same direction. How many times do we have to explain the models are reliable, or a cold day in November isn't evidence that it's all bunk. I simply cannot prove criminal activity. That is something the courts often fail to do with wealthy or powerful people, so I do not accept that challenge. I find it tiring to dismantle cherry picked data over and over, when there is no interest in a good will discussion regarding the evidence. How much status would you give to a climate change denier who never heard of the IPCC? This is similar. One would assume they have no information at all.

 

Third way democrat policies do not favour working class people, a point Tar made, which I hesitantly agreed with. I'm not sure what that has to do with corruption or criminality, again showing dishonesty in the debate. When a mod who is leading the pro Clinton arguments, doesn't know this very basic political knowledge, it shows there is a total lack of knowledge on this issue. This is not hidden information and is discussed ad nauseum throughout the primaries. Third way democrats are ok with taking big money donations from large corporations.

 

There are plenty of expose's on the Clinton Foundation, and there is an at minimum optics issue, with much more troubling evidence being exposed. The AP did a brief expose, Charles Ortel did a more in depth expose, and the Empire files did one too. I didn't even go into Clinton Cash, which was reasonably well sourced in spite of the author being associated with Breitbart, an instant disqualifier to most people on the left. That's too bad, as it wasn't the usual right wing crap you typically see on Fox.

 

It's frustrating to see such strong convictions that there is no wrongdoing, when there are multiple lines of evidence available to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge base here. It just seems like creationism or climate change denial.

[swansont]

I simply cannot prove criminal activity.

And nobody asked you to.

[MigL]

On one of the other threads, iNow has posted a cartoon about athletes who refuse to stand for the national anthem.

These athletes are protesting a certain aspect of American culture. They are not saying the US is a bad place ( or else they would have left and gone to another country ), but that it could certainly be improved, and be made even better.

( they do however have to suffer the consequences of exercising their right to protest, and the coach may not play them, or the fans may "Boooo" them )

 

That is all some of us are saying about H. Clinton.

She IS the better candidate ( then again anyone would be ).

But that doesn't mean she's perfect and has made no mistakes.

Se has faults and has 'skeletons in her closet'.

Could the Democrats have fielded a better candidate ? Sure ( but they may have not won the election )

 

So why is it so wrong to examine and discuss these faults and mistakes ( she may have or may not have made ) ?

[DrmDoc]

On one of the other threads, iNow has posted a cartoon about athletes who refuse to stand for the national anthem.

These athletes are protesting a certain aspect of American culture. They are not saying the US is a bad place ( or else they would have left and gone to another country ), but that it could certainly be improved, and be made even better.

( they do however have to suffer the consequences of exercising their right to protest, and the coach may not play them, or the fans may "Boooo" them )

 

That is all some of us are saying about H. Clinton.

She IS the better candidate ( then again anyone would be ).

But that doesn't mean she's perfect and has made no mistakes.

Se has faults and has 'skeletons in her closet'.

Could the Democrats have fielded a better candidate ? Sure ( but they may have not won the election )

 

So why is it so wrong to examine and discuss these faults and mistakes ( she may have or may not have made ) ?

 

I don't think anyone here is trying to stifle discussion of Mrs. Clinton's foibles and no one should consider a challenge to their opinion or evidence here as an attempt to do so--at least that is not the intent of my challenges. If I challenge an opinion here, it's with the intent to obtain and disseminate real truths rather than a preponderance of assumption based on perceptions so many erroneously consider credible evidence.

Edited September 23, 2016 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

On one of the other threads, iNow has posted a cartoon about athletes who refuse to stand for the national anthem.

These athletes are protesting a certain aspect of American culture. They are not saying the US is a bad place ( or else they would have left and gone to another country ), but that it could certainly be improved, and be made even better.

( they do however have to suffer the consequences of exercising their right to protest, and the coach may not play them, or the fans may "Boooo" them )

 

That is all some of us are saying about H. Clinton.

She IS the better candidate ( then again anyone would be ).

But that doesn't mean she's perfect and has made no mistakes.

Se has faults and has 'skeletons in her closet'.

Could the Democrats have fielded a better candidate ? Sure ( but they may have not won the election )

 

So why is it so wrong to examine and discuss these faults and mistakes ( she may have or may not have made ) ?

It's not wrong. But I would like to have some documentation of these faults, rather than assertion and innuendo. With Trump, this documentation is laughably easy. So why can't we apply the same standard here?