(May 8, 2016 at 10:13 am)Mermaid Wrote: I am just asking because it seems to me that Clinton is held to a different standard for some reason. I keep hearing about how evil she is, but there's no real substance behind this accusation. Bengazi, the mail server thing, all of it is a smokescreen. Why the hate?
Someone tell me it's not because she's female. I can't help but believe that though.

No, I agree with you she is held to a different standard compared to other politicians just as dishonest or even more dishonest than her.

(May 7, 2016 at 8:38 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Hillary has always been a moderate Republican.

Apart from some social issues, Hilary is as liberal as Margaret Thatcher. But that's nothing new in American politics, with Jimmy Carter (btw the only president in recent history not starting wars) and Obama, being a little more moderate and at least trying to move the country. Obama had the game rigged against him right from the start. So there's always the possibility that he could have achieved more under different political circumstances.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:01 am)Mermaid Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 9:35 am)Chad32 Wrote: She's dishonest. Not that there are many honest politicians left in the country, but it means she's part of the problem. Not the solution.

How is she any different in that regard than the other candidates?

I answered that question in the second sentence.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:24 am)Chad32 Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 10:01 am)Mermaid Wrote: How is she any different in that regard than the other candidates?

I answered that question in the second sentence.

So why is Clinton singled out as "evil"?

Because right now she's in the spotlight.

I am not deliberately being obtuse on this, I really haven't heard a good explanation for her being "evil" other than parroting "Bengazi! Email servers! Campaign contributions!" but have not heard anything of real substance that differentiates her from any other candidates who are not widely accused of being "evil".

Nobody has been able to come up with anything substantial.

I agree, Mermaid. The anti-Hillary cries have been irrational. Not that there isn't reason why some people might dislike her but I haven't heard much logical criticism. She's a centrist Democrat and those with far-left views often vilify her for no other reason than that.

Part of it is probably because this time around, we actually have a candidate that's a good guy. Not the lesser of two evils, but someone many actually want to vote for. And a dirty shirt always looks worse when put next to a clean one.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Part of it is probably because this time around, we actually have a candidate that's a good guy. Not the lesser of two evils, but someone many actually want to vote for. And a dirty shirt always looks worse when put next to a clean one.

But realism says, the good guy is on his way out. So everyone not wanting a nuclear meltdown, economical as well as political, will have to vote for the dirty shirt.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Part of it is probably because this time around, we actually have a candidate that's a good guy. Not the lesser of two evils, but someone many actually want to vote for. And a dirty shirt always looks worse when put next to a clean one.

That's a matter of opinion. I would not put it in terms of "good" and "bad" but I would not be thrilled with someone like Bernie as President. I'm rational enough that I would go out and vote for him if he were the nominee but I prefer a centrist Democrat who is not going to go soft and national defense. I also prefer someone who isn't so hostile to business that they will (imo) cost jobs.