it's also a good diagnosis of the Republican disease of ignoring easy political points by trying to stretch evidence further than it really goes. treating every particle of evidence as if it were a bombs and a cataclysm for HRC tends to discredit the polemic. the tendency to exaggerate and jump to outlandish conclusions has undermined what should be -- and otherwise would be -- a very strong case against HRC.
that said, in the totality the picture is fairly damning.
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-25-2016 at 11:56 PM.
Schweizer did exaggerate certain elements but over all the case he presented was very strong. I found it interesting in your article that one of his criticisms of Schweizer was that he did not dig in far enough and easily expose other deplorable acts by the Clintons.
yep. the incompetence of HRC's critics is unfortunate.
having wasted so much of their own credibility on bull and exaggeration hurt their own case and Donald Trump.
HRC's defenders now parrot the logic of Citizen's United while defenders of Citizen's United abandon it. The target changes the positions of both sides:
http://www.ibtimes.com/defense-clint...united-1903669In campaign statements and talking points -- and in activists' tweets and Facebook comments -- the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the insinuation seems to be that the revelations aren't even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, "there’s nothing new" here.
To advocates for limiting the influence of money in politics, this pushback from Democrats is particularly rich (pun intended) coming from a party that spent a decade asserting that Republicans raking in cash from Big Oil and pushing oil-friendly policies was rank corruption. The Democratic defense of their presumptive presidential nominee registers as especially disturbing to campaign finance reform advocates considering the mighty efficiency of the Clinton fundraising machine
Trump couldn't resist the bait. He called HRC a bigot.
Result, the talking heads are talking about that exchange today.The Clinton Foundation, much less so.
Time for the GOP to face it. Trump is their McGovern.
It won't be that bad but it's a decent analogy. I wonder if Hillary will fulfill the Nixon role as POTUS.
it's not over by a long shot, but this is the GOP's weakest candidate -- and weakest campaign -- in my lifetime.
it isn't even close.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
