Can you imagine the response if a President Elect Hillary acted even a little like Trump has? If she put out even one childish tweet? If there was even a hint of the kinds of rumors about kompromat or direct ties to, say, Chinese influence -- let alone a real (whether or not it's legitimate information) dossier passed from John McCain to intelligence agencies? If the first white house press conference went even a little bit like how Trump's went? If she threatened to put Trump in jail to his face on live TV and then immediately backpedaled after being elected? If her approval rating was as low as Trump's is, and she accused the media of rigging approval polls? Imagine her picking Tillerson and people from Goldman Sachs for her cabinet.
If you want to talk about hypothetical double standards I want to get to the bottom of this one first.
My point was more around the shotgun blast of campaign promises she put out. How should we measure that? If Trump nails even a few of his promises, he might arguably meet more of his campaign promises than HRC would have.
Yes there absolutely is a double standard here. Trump is not judged the same as a career politician.
He needs to be, despite the fact that at times he's acted like his Presidency is something he'll fit in around everything else he has going on.
And you can't really point to HRC and say that she put out a shotgun blast of campaign promises. Trump has done the same.
I won't argue that in any case, increased monitoring and accountability of those in positions of power and / or influence should be something we strive for, regardless of affiliation.
Considering the amount of conspiracy nuts who make it their life goal to pin everything on the Clintons and the amount of mainstream attention they got + the rabid anti-Hillary sentiment on the right, my answer is "absolutely".
Whether you are a Trump supporter or not, it's difficult to suggest that he is not radically different than other politicians and tremendously polarizing. Some see that as a sign of much needed change and other see it as a potential threat to democracy. Clinton was seen as largely a continuation of politics as normal so it would seem unlikely that there would have been large protests - perhaps more Tea Party protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests) or an increased presence at the existing standing conservative marches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.... etc).
Who said anything about protesting? Either way, yea, I doubt there'd be as big of a protest (there would still be a lot, remember the tea party?) because H was an actual rational candidate who may have had some questionable views but didn't insult war heroes, slander entire ethnicities, and brag about sexual assault? It's pretty obvious why Trump is unpopular and why people are protesting him. I don't really see the point of your comment other than to stir up nothing. Are you really trying to have a discourse about this? Somehow I doubt it.
> I don't really see the point of your comment other than to stir up nothing.
She was running on a campaign of starting a war with Russia. If you see sending mostly poor folks from cities and the Bible Belt over to die in Syria or wherever as being 'nothing' then I have no problem stirring that up.
We certainly shouldn't condone Trump's comments about women. But if you think his comments magically erase, say, the Clinton's role in the HIV epidemic then I think you're drinking the Kool-Aid. So yeah, I protested Trump, and if Clinton had won I'd be protesting her also.
>But if you think his comments magically erase, say, the Clinton's role in the HIV epidemic then I think you're drinking the Kool-Aid.
Never said anything like that. I have no love for hillary and did not vote for her but dude get over it. Anti-Hillary people are actually like stalkers and they can't seem to just let it go. She lost, she's not the problem right now. Please stop making every Trump thing into a Trump vs. Clinton thing
I think we wouldn't have seen millions protesting because Trump supporters were overwhelmingly not from cities. Where it is much easier to get hundreds of thousands together.
62% of the US population lives in cities. Trump got 46% of the popular vote. What you are saying is just barely mathematically possible and most likely untrue.
The extent to which the Clintons undergo the "conspiracy" treatment is almost comical. There are entire galaxies of blogs and sites dedicated to teasing out symbolism from the most mundane of details. See: pizzagate.
You mean like when Hillary Clinton repeatedly invoked the existence of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her and Bill back in the 90's? Yes, that was comical.
Anyway, pizzagate is a well known hoax. Does that somehow cancel out all the other conspiracies that surround the Clintons? Logically it does not but most people are only thinking at a 3rd grade level so it's a great distraction.
Where there's smoke, there's fire and there's plenty of evidence to support the Clintons selling nuclear secrets to China, smuggling drugs with the CIA at Mena Airport and of course the infamous "body count".
Is it? I haven't found any solid debunking of the really weird aspects (handkerchief email). The wikipedia article lists [1] and [2] as citations for the word "debunked", but both don't really offer any compelling argument except the general preposterousness of the crazy 4chan talk. But there are no alternative, plausible explanations for the weird, code-like language of some of the emails.
Please point me to better debunkings if you know or can find out.
Yes, it is. Tons of media outlets have investigated it and found nothing. Even if they had found some tiny sliver of evidence—which they didn't—it wouldn't prove that there was a conspiracy, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There's infinitely more reason to believe the Steele dossier is true than Pizzagate, but at the moment we have to assume it is false too, because the evidence just hasn't shown up.
> But there are no alternative, plausible explanations for the weird, code-like language of some of the emails.
Maybe, just maybe, when John Podesta talked about pizza, he was actually talking about pizza.
Sure there are all the political reasons to wonder. And also, Trump made a lot of specific pledges such as the wall, repealing Obamacare, cutting corporate tax rate. In each case it's easy to say whether it was done or not. So there's more opportunity to do this with him.
Nice work on them spelling the ___domain incorrectly.
"Meter" is a device used to measure things, or as in musical time. "Metre" is almost exclusively a unit of distance. It's not called a "speedometre" unless you're French.
What are you talking about? Obama got literally the same treatment. Every president going forward will get the same treatment, and that's a good thing!
I have to wonder though if we'd see the same level of scrutiny if HRC had won.