If you call yourself a critical thinker, than you’ll love John Oliver‘s latest segment from Last Week Tonight. He compared Hillary Clinton‘s scandals to those of Donald Trump. And by every meaningful metric, there’s absolutely no comparison.
This wasn’t just a knee-jerk partisan response. His team dug into what she did and how problematic it was. Was she frustrating and foolish at times? Absolutely. Did she commit any crimes? No.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to experience nothing but scandal and fraud — and anyone daring to criticize Clinton over her foundation or emails has to explain why his never-ending web of problems don’t carry the same weight with them.
Don't bother Republicans with facts and reason,
it hurts their tiny brains.
I'll start off by saying I don't support Trump in any way, shape, or form. And yes, he has numerous disqualifying factors for president IMO. However, why is it that whenever Clinton gets defended the statements "she didn't commit any crimes" or "there's no provable evidence" always come out? Shouldn't the person who will almost assuredly be the next president be held to a higher standard than that? The Democrat party will millions and millions of members couldn't come up with a better candidate?
Clinton and nearly all modern politicians are so much better at insulating themselves from scandal, 'no laws were broken' should not be a defense. 'No laws were broken' is the defense of someone who's not going to jail, not the someone going to be the next POTUS.
If there are no laws broken what would you have them do / why would you disqualify her? Isn't probably cause, a conviction, etc. a part of our legal process?
Of course it is part of our process. But legality shouldn't be the only consideration for the highest office in this country. Personally, legality should never the defense for anything. I would disqualify her for her complete lack of judgement just for her email situation alone. She clearly lied about it. No, no laws were broken. And also, to believe her, you'd have to believe that the SoS NEVER receives classified emails, EVER. It's just not plausible on any level. And no, this isn't about Benghazi, I couldn't care less about that as it pertains to her emails. It's about her truthfulness and judgement. Of which I don't personally believe she either truthful or has good judgement.
I find it sad that the defense of her is she did nothing "illegal". Fantastic, what a high bar that has been set.
+Gary Beltrami Didn't the video show that she didn't lie about it?
+Richard Golebiowski Haven't watch this video. Don't really need to though. She's admitted she only had 1 email account. She's apologized for her bad judgment for it (and rationalized it by saying Powell and others did the same). And the FBI called her reckless. I like Oliver, but I don't need him to tell me the facts as they've already been admitted to.
Why would you comment without even reviewing what's cited? That shows a serious lack of judgement. I mean it's not illegal to do so of course, but your level of judgment must certainly be brought into question.
le·gal·i·ty
ləˈɡalədē/
noun
* the quality or state of being in accordance with the law.
"documentation testifying to the legality of the arms sale"
* obligations imposed by law.
That point of laws being put in place is to societally distinguish between the whims of men versus the agreed on legal standards by which we live.
+Paul Spoerry It seems to me that this is the level to which we've sunk. There are a lot of people that only care to look at the picture and headline and cast judgement based on their current mindset. They go by what they feel as opposed to going by the facts.
This is why Trump is doing so well. He knows he just has to say the right things to appeal to the most people, appeal to what they feel, because they will ignore the facts.
Who is ignoring facts? The candidate herself admits the use of only a personal email account. The FBI publicly stated the problems with that circumstance and her "recklessness". I'm not sure how I need John Oliver, a comedian, to explain to me the facts, this isn't about what I feel. It's about the facts as stated by the candidate and the FBI. Yet, I'm being questioned about ignoring facts? Seems to me it's others that need to look at facts.
And again, if legality is the definition of high standards then slave owing and Japanese internment wee all just fine, because they were deemed legal.
I find Clinton supporters almost as in denial about certain aspects of her as Trump supports are in denial about what he is and represents. This entire election cycle is shocking and should be embarrassing to anyone paying attention.
Um… you? As you've still not even seen the video. You're basically tossing your opinion on a comment about a video that you've never seen.
"And again, if legality is the definition of high standards then slave owing and Japanese internment wee all just fine, because they were deemed legal." – In that if someone did it while those laws were in place I suppose it was. Does that mean laws can/should be changed? Sure. But until they do so nothing illegal has happened and you can't exactly punish someone for something that's not currently illegal. That'd be like me putting you in jail because you live in Elk Grove. But… it's not illegal to be in Elk Grove you'd say. Yeah… but if THAT is the definition of high standard then we have to put you in jail. But you'd disagree – as well you should – until people actually made it illegal to live there. See… see how legality plays into it?