What are we comparing Hillary's corruption to exactly?

Hahahahah.

 

Keep playing dumb. Turn your cheek. Not Clinton. Got it.

 

Well, since I'm playing dumb, genius, how about you explain to us how this email proves that Hillary Clinton is corrupt? I'd really like an explanation on behalf of me and the other dummies.

 

There isn't a good way to quantify corruption. From what I've seen so far -- unless Hillary really did order hits on all those people -- I'd say her level or corruption is higher than, say, Obama's, but probably lower than Bush, who had foreign targets tortured at black sites, and deleted 33m emails to cover it up and who knows what else besides. It has to be lower than Reagan and the Iran-Contra fiasco. Lower than Nixon. Perhaps roughly equivalent to Bill Clinton, who perjured himself. Of course, she hasn't had as much runway as these guys yet.

Best argument I've seen in this thread. And its weaksauce. All the Clintons' records are public. Here's an article that breaks down how they made their fortune: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex...n-after-leaving-the-white-house/#253350da791e

I will say though, that the speaking circuit seems to be a growth business. Bill Clinton is the one making the most from it. GWB earns some coin the same way though. I imagine Obama will command a very healthy fee once he's retired. But other, more minor politicians and celebrities also make these hefty fees, which suggests to me that Clinton's fees are actually in line with his celebrity power and there isn't any excess there to justify favors.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/tp/List-Of-Living-Presidents.htm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galler...eaking-fees-more-overpaid-talkers-photos.html

Not a lot to go on in that very short article. There was stuff marked classified that Clinton's camp thought was too mundane or harmless to justify its classification. The article may be merely describing the process of Clinton asking for more reasonable classifications, or it may reflect pressure applied to get unreasonable classifications. There isn't enough information for the reader to tell the difference.

 

So everyone is super concerned about Citizens United, corruption, and corporate influence, until...

...Hillary Clinton is nominated by the DNC. lol.

As for the OP, perhaps he should check in on the definition of "rhetoric" and compare it to the definition of platitude, and then see which is a better fit in this case. I should say that his insistent casting of the platitude label has become one of this forums more prominent bromides.

 

I haven't noticed anyone abandoning their dislike of citizens united, corruption, or corporate influence.

 

Someone (partially) agrees with me - we need a negative vote. I think this year, more than ever, negative votes would be the preferred choice to be cast. I can envision a system in the case which no candidate meets enough votes to win by electoral college, to then proceed down the line of succession - to the House Speaker. This would likely put Paul Ryan as president - which is a much better choice than the most corrupt politician ever, Hillary Clinton.

 

Well you say that because you are a conservative. I'm willing to bet you'd have a problem finding many liberals that agree with you. You talk about citizens united and money in politics and bring up another career politician who is all for citizens united. A politician that is also worth millions of dollars btw.

All you've really done is traded a conservative in for a liberal, which is fine. You'd prefer Ryan over Clinton because of your bias. That's fine. I'd prefer Clinton over Ryan because of my bias.

Also this whole "Most corrupt politician ever." thing I'd make a case for Nixon and Bush.

 

I'm curious to hear from the Bernie supporters of the board, does this anger you?

Considering that not only were Trumps supporters being painted as violent, but Bernie supporters were branded as being violent too.

These 'protesters' were decked in Bernie gear and the media really picked it up and forced the narrative that his supporters were a bunch of hooligans

and yet all along Clinton was behind it

slander two opponents for the price of one

 

This is infuriating! I can see why some want a revolution.

 

As a Bernie supporter no it does not. It doesn't seem to anger Bernie either since he's told his supporters to support Clinton.

 

Yes, I'm lying to you about how I feel (which you know me better than me I suppose.) ...or that Bernie is supporting Hillary....

I get using the occasional gif or clip for amusement purposes but you've gone a little overboard by now with it. I'd like to think this place is for actual discussion and not just posting youtube videos for your arguments.

 

All in good fun bro. Im waiting for your gif/ video response.

 

I question whether some people who comment on politics even went to high school. Looking at you cohete.

Clinton isn't the "most corrupt" politician ever. What a narrow worldview to think so. She isn't the "most corrupt" American politician ever either.

Clinton isn't even the "most corrupt" presidential candidate ever. Hell, if elected she wouldn't even be in the running for "most corrupt" president ever. How can anyone who learned about Harding or Nixon think otherwise?

So what exactly is she?

Trite, hackneyed, platitude..

You can use all of the above words to describe that sentiment.

 

25 years of all out political oppo research, 4 years of the Ken Starr investigation with the full weight of the Justice Department and 33 hearings on Benghazi.... and basically Bill lied about whether oral sex is sex.

Business and government are now and always have been co-operative and based on personal relationships.

We all take political propaganda too seriously, just look at what the candidates within a party say about each other. After the vote it's like they never said it.