Maybe it drips off her because she is not corrupt and all that corruption is republicon's ( and no I did not misspell ) propaganda!!!!!!!
Nancy
I mean absolutely no offense, but doesn't that sound like what an awful lot of Cristina's supporters say as well? Do you honestly think either of the Clintons are really snow white in the sense that they are not corrupt at all, either one of them? I won't go through the list of investigations and the help that Hillary has had to avoid problems, I assume you have read it because you ant to exclude anything except what she's actually been convicted of and we both know that hasn't happened yet.
I believe that most politicians are corrupt to an extent. although that is not a proven statement, merely my opinion. It is my opinion also, to answer a bit of your follow-up messages, that both Clintons are corrupt. It is not fact, and no, they have not been found guilty by a court of law to my knowledge.
I have read quite a bit on the Clintons. I don't follow them specifically, I'm not addicted to researching them or anything, I read stuff as it passes by. Not just on them, but on a lot of people. The consistent accusations, the "I didn't know", the "it wasn't as bad as it seemed", and whatever excuse, the alleged pressures used in some cases, have a certain consistency of action about them that makes them believable. There is more on them than many other politicians of renown. Why? Why them in particular? Are they JFK-like, timeless and pure and it's just those dirty Republicans that are lying to everyone? I don't see the Republicans "lying" about a whole lot of other people, though yeah, there are some I suppose that they accuse of things. Not like the Democrats are little angels and not like they don't accuse Republicans right back, of course. But so much more, it seems to me, flies around the Clintons.
If even a tenth of what has been accused over the years is even half correct, well, I would consider that corrupt.
I liked Bill Clinton as president. I actually voted for him both times - I was quite liberal-leaning in my younger years. Though I was relieved he had to move more toward the center than he may have wanted. But I hadn't heard enough about either of them at the time. I've changed my opinion of their probable nature. While Bill's presidency was pretty good and had a good effect on the country, Hillary is not Bill and I don't like her style at all, and I don't trust her, not nearly as much as I did Bill Clinton when I voted for him (and wouldn't now, BTW - but hindsight is indeed 20/20, I know).
When Lewinsky happened, I lost most of my respect for Bill Clinton. Not because he did it, but because he was so cheesy about it and lied and lied and lied. The first time he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" I knew he was lying. I could just see it in the way it came across as a campaign statement and not one of personal conviction, absolute knowledge within himself that he did not do it. His outrage didn't seem real, he seemed more upset that he was having to deal with that, to me. I remembered feeling that at the time. I was not surprised when he later admitted to it. Did he really think that wouldn't come out? He lied instead of being presidential (oh, sorry, it wasn't a "sexual relationship" he confessed to, but rather an "improper physical relationship" - how to spin a lie as not a lie, just not telling the whole truth, which mot people always seem to think is a lie). And yeah, it was a human mistake to lie, deny, deny. But it made him less than trustworthy and not very smart because he should have known that there was no way he wasn't going to end up holding the bag at some point - most 10-year-olds have learned that, even though we all slip in life - we just hope our president is someone special. Not usually the case, they just think they are and manage to convince an awful lot of other people they are too.
My step grandfather was a pilot. He flew JFK around on some of his campaign stops in '60. He was heavily involved in Democratic politics in Arkansas as well as the transportation unions in the 60s and 70s . He had a lot to tell us about Democratic politics in Arkansas. I just see so much of that accused to Bill and Hillary (and she was from Chicago and moved to Arkansas in the mid 70s) that match up with the kinds of stories I heard from my step grandfather.
As far as her competence - I don't see it. I think she does mediocre jobs at best and does indeed flip flop on a few issues. The Benghazi email thing is ridiculous. And I don't care who else should have been castigated for doing the same thing at other times - do so! You don't have some private IT guy set up a server that receives top secret information outside of governmental protocols. While it may not have been criminal (which I'm not convinced of, and I'm not sure the FBI director is either, but I haven't talked to him
) it was at very best highly irresponsible. And if the government as a whole is doing this wholesale, it's stupid! But she delayed and dodged getting the emails turned in and some of the emails the FBI recovered from deleted emails were not handed over in the emails Clinton ended up turning in. Who knows what else there might have been? She tried cover up her breaking protocol, at very best, in my opinion. Instead of being presidential and owning up to making an error.
Bill and Hillary are a part of the "ruling class" of the US that are running it into the ground with their indifference and greed for money and power. I can excuse it better in the private sector because it's private and people can vote with their pocket if they want to and many who defraud the people they are supposed to treat honestly do end up getting pursued and punished. I can't excuse it when people are supposed to servants to the people and end up betraying them. It's all a show while the powerful maneuver for their own good over that of the people's. I'm talking in broad terms; nothing in nature, not even politicians, are 100%. but Bill and Hillary, in my opinion, are ones to watch out for.
Trump is a buffoon, but he's not a part of the ruling class. No, he's from the merchant class. He's a businessman. He's had his share of problems, and I doubt he's a great guy except to those he loves. I'm sure he's done some backroom deals himself and has screwed over some people. Yet, I don't see him as worse than a politician in those regards.
But he's not entrenched in politics. He's not a guy who has dedicated his life to actually ruling everyone, I don't believe - I think he ran for president as more of a lark than something serious, at least at first. I think he'll shake things up. I hope he'll shake things up. In fact, I'm sure that he already has, and I hope politicians remember how much anger has come out of a large number of people in the form of supporting Trump, in the future.
Trump can't become a Hitler. He has no party backing him that manner, and the disenfranchised people he represents wouldn't, as a whole, support brownshirts and midnight executions of people that don't follow with Trump. He can't just order a wall built between Mexico and the US, but even if he could, there are an awful lot of idiots that want that done anyway and it could very well happen at some other time under another administration. the office of the president has an awful lot of inertia that comes with it - just ask President Obama.
As far as Trump, as president, having his thumb on the Button - please. First off, it's not like there's literally a button on his desk that he flips up a plastic cap protecting the actual switch, and then flip the switch and all our rockets go blow up the rest of the world. I know you all know that, but think for a minute. He has to be shown what to do. He needs help to accomplish giving the order. There is a chain of people that he would go through to get that order out. People who are around the president at the time that he makes such a decision would be well aware of what is happening. Would that whole chain of people really allow him to do such a thing for a reason such as "we need to blow away all them towel heads in that thar middle east place?" Right. Yeah. And if our people were so blind that they would allow that to happen - well, we're all well and truly screwed because if we are really giving all that power to one person to be able to destroy the world with a whim, it will happen one day, there can be no doubt about that.
But I don't believe it for a second.
Yeah, he can screw things up on a smaller scale though. He can order air strikes, troop strikes, etc. He could possibly get a large scale operation going, but again, I'm thinking he's going to have to go through a lot of people who would resign before they would allow a civilian to order the wholesale slaughter of people in a country and those resignations would make the news and get people up in arms - oh, but wait! Geez, I forgot, every president in recent history (well, pretty much every president, I do believe) has done so, right? Some with the support of Congress, some lying to get the support of Congress and without approval or at least with controversy. We are one of the bloodiest nations on this planet and have been so for some time. Pretty much since we started the US of A. And most of those damned affairs have turned out terrible, and the only ones I, personally, believe we had any right to be in, as a real need to fight against a true enemy and spend our precious American lives, was WWII and the Revolutionary War (though I'm not an expert on every military adventure we've instigated), though if we had fought the civil War to free the slaves I would likely have included that as a third.
Trump wouldn't be any worse than most of the other gentlemen who have ordered so much chaos, I don't think.
But I don't think he'd be doing too much real violent foreign adventuring under his presidency, if he got elected, no matter what he's spouted off. He's a businessman, not an arms dealer. He knows that war doesn't make for good business unless you're an arms dealer or manufacturer. I don't think the same about Hillary - I think she would be a bit of a hawk, and if for nothing else than to prove she's as tough as a man, because yes, I think she's that kind of a person. And before anyone cries foul, understand something. I'm not saying that she is weak because she's a woman, and that any woman in that job would be a hawk because she might need to prove she's as "tough as any man", I just think that about Hillary Clinton as a person.
But that's just my opinion, and I'm sorry you all don't share it
