Hillary's Troubles Solidify

[seanD]

The Republicans have cried "wolf" so much in the past about the Clintons that it's made most democrats immune. What will happen, I think, after she's indicted is that the media will gradually make it clear to dems that this is not a Republican pseudo-scandal, and dem politicians will gradually come forward and condemn Clinton, and that's when it will start to hit home with averagely-ignorant voters.

Nah, even the Dems know how corrupt Hillary is and they admit this. What it comes down to, is that when it's the Reps that attack her for her corruption, Dems are compelled by an irresistible urge to defend her. It's like a political knee-jerk reaction. Purely partisan in nature.

[rogue06]

The Republicans have cried "wolf" so much in the past about the Clintons that it's made most democrats immune. What will happen, I think, after she's indicted is that the media will gradually make it clear to dems that this is not a Republican pseudo-scandal, and dem politicians will gradually come forward and condemn Clinton, and that's when it will start to hit home with averagely-ignorant voters.

It is anything but crying wolf although they are guilty of over playing their hand at times. The primary problem is a media that usually runs interference for Democrats. I remember well how CNN banned the use of the word "scandal" in the middle of the scandal wracked Clinton troubles. And how, toward the end of it, many of the media big wigs would proclaim just how scandal-free his Administration was

[Starlight]

Nah, even the Dems know how corrupt Hillary is and they admit this.

It varies. But yes, I am always surprised when her supporters admit how corrupt she is and what a terrible candidate she is. eg Sam from this forum. But I think, for the most part, Clinton supporters are just ignorant of politics and don't really know how corrupt she is because they don't follow politics much.

What it comes down to, is that when it's the Reps that attack her for her corruption,

The Republicans attacking anyone else for corruption is just plain hypocrisy. The Republican party is built on and with corruption. Its reason for existence these days is to give billionaires everything they want.

There's getting to be a very high amount of corruption in the democratic party too, I'll grant you that, and Clinton is among the worst. But the dems still trail the Republicans when it comes to corruption. Votes in congress to end corruption nearly also divide perfectly down party lines: 100% of dems vote against corruption, and 100% of Republicans vote for it. That tells you a lot.

Part of the reason I loathe Clinton is that I think having someone with her level of corruption in what is supposed to be the party of the people is unacceptable. If she were a Republican, then I would just regard her corruption as par for the course, and she wouldn't look out of place in that party.

It's like a political knee-jerk reaction. Purely partisan in nature.

I don't think that's true. I would say that the Republicans try and make everything they do about partisan politics and knee-jerk reactions, and their choice to do that from the 90s to the present has been very detrimental to the US political landscape, and it's why the current Republican-controlled congress has an approval rating somewhere around 9%.

But the same is not true of democrats. While I think that the political strategies used by democratic politicians and strategists have ranged from poor to terrible over the last 20 years, the one failing I don't think they can reasonably be accused of is playing too much partisan politics. I would severely fault them for doing the opposite: Not playing enough partisan politics. They have played into Republican hands by trying too hard to achieve "compromises" at any cost. In a political environment where the Republicans have been at war, the dems have responded with Neville Chamberlain-esque peace-offerings of gifting them Czechoslovakia, Poland, and anything and everything else in an ongoing futile attempt at appeasement.

[Starlight]

It is anything but crying wolf although they are guilty of over playing their hand at times.

Well I doubt your perception of this is connected to the reality, but in the real world most people think that the vast majority of the investigations into the Clintons found they did nothing wrong.

I loathe the Clintons. I hate how they took the democratic party to the right in the 90s. I hate how corrupt they are. I hate how much they flip-flop. I hate how they pretend to be progressive while being to the right of center. I would genuinely love to see Hillary Clinton go to jail. But even I think that 90% of the investigations the Republicans have done on the Clintons over their lifetimes, were pointless waste-of-time pseudo-scandals that found nothing.

Let's take Benghazi for instance. There were a lot of terrorist attacks on consulates under Bush. And the dems and the general public, though sad about it, didn't see it as a scandal. There was one such attack under Obama, at Benghazi. The Republicans decided to try and turn this into an anti-Obama scandal, and try to link it to him being weak on fighting terrorism and not being able to say the words magic words "Islamic terrorism" (as if him saying the words were a magic spell to defeat all terrorism and as if Bush had stopped terrorism in its tracks by uttering those words ~rolleyes~). After a half dozen investigations finding nothing and years of Republicans getting nowhere with mumbling "something something, Benghazi!" in Obama's general direction not working for them, Clinton began running for president and the Republicans redirected the Benghazi train-wreck in her direction. Everything was now reinterpreted as Clinton's fault. And now, after the eighth Benghazi investigation, there is still nothing... no evidence whatsoever that Clinton did anything wrong with regard to Benghazi.

Over the years, that's how the majority of the investigations into the Clintons have ended up, with totally nothing. There were about 3 that didn't... one of which was the <sarcasm>startling revelation that Bill Clinton had sex</sarcasm>. And since, then, virtually every Republican leader involved in those impeachment attempts has had a sex scandal of their own.

The primary problem is a media that usually runs interference for Democrats.

LOL. Establishment corporate media is hardly on the democrats side specifically. They're just on the side of the establishment - both political parties who give them huge amounts of money for political ads, and the mega corporations who own the media companies and the other corporations who pay them for ads.

[seanD]

SL, learn how to write succinctly. Sheesh.

[seanD]

It varies. But yes, I am always surprised when her supporters admit how corrupt she is and what a terrible candidate she is. eg Sam from this forum. But I think, for the most part, Clinton supporters are just ignorant of politics and don't really know how corrupt she is because they don't follow politics much.

The Republicans attacking anyone else for corruption is just plain hypocrisy. The Republican party is built on and with corruption. Its reason for existence these days is to give billionaires everything they want.

There's getting to be a very high amount of corruption in the democratic party too, I'll grant you that, and Clinton is among the worst. But the dems still trail the Republicans when it comes to corruption. Votes in congress to end corruption nearly also divide perfectly down party lines: 100% of dems vote against corruption, and 100% of Republicans vote for it. That tells you a lot.

Part of the reason I loathe Clinton is that I think having someone with her level of corruption in what is supposed to be the party of the people is unacceptable. If she were a Republican, then I would just regard her corruption as par for the course, and she wouldn't look out of place in that party.

I don't think that's true. I would say that the Republicans try and make everything they do about partisan politics and knee-jerk reactions, and their choice to do that from the 90s to the present has been very detrimental to the US political landscape, and it's why the current Republican-controlled congress has an approval rating somewhere around 9%.

But the same is not true of democrats. While I think that the political strategies used by democratic politicians and strategists have ranged from poor to terrible over the last 20 years, the one failing I don't think they can reasonably be accused of is playing too much partisan politics. I would severely fault them for doing the opposite: Not playing enough partisan politics. They have played into Republican hands by trying too hard to achieve "compromises" at any cost. In a political environment where the Republicans have been at war, the dems have responded with Neville Chamberlain-esque peace-offerings of gifting them Czechoslovakia, Poland, and anything and everything else in an ongoing futile attempt at appeasement.

Yeah we know the political arena is systemically corrupt, yada yayda yada. My point was that, they're going after Hillary because she gives them so much ammunition. Your implication was that they go after her under false political pretenses, but that isn't how it looks to me. They're going after her because they have genuine reasons to do so. Benghazi, White Water, sham donor foundations, emails, etc, etc., are all real bonafide scandals, otherwise they wouldn't be targeting her and only her as hard as they've been doing. My opinion is that they only backed off because she had ammunition against them as well, not because they weren't genuine scandals and cover-ups.

[RumTumTugger]

SL, learn how to write succinctly. Sheesh.

HE also needs to admit that since he has never lived in the United States he knows nothing about us and what is happening here. Either that or he is purposely keeping himself ignorant of the true facts about how the MSM's motto is the democrats can do no wrong and the Republicans are the only wrongdoers even when they do nothing wrong.

[Starlight]

HE also needs to admit that since he has never lived in the United States he knows nothing about us and what is happening here.

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

Either that or he is purposely keeping himself ignorant of the true facts about how the MSM's motto is the democrats can do no wrong and the Republicans are the only wrongdoers even when they do nothing wrong.

LOL. The problem is pretty much the opposite. The MSM treats anything the Republicans do as valid, even when it isn't. The MSM has a massive bias towards neutrality and treating everything like it's 50-50: "Republicans say X, Democrats say Y, who can really know the truth?" In reality, over the last 30 years, the Republicans have acted incredibly stupidly and the media has failed to call them out on it, because it treats anything they do as inherently valid.

So instead of reporting "Republicans have started an eighth investigation into Benghazi. When will these idiotic conspiracy theorists stop gratuitously wasting tax-payer money? When will they stop using the deaths of US soldiers for partisan political purposes? Can't they learn a thing or two from the democrats who were content to let there be only one 9/11 investigation despite Bush letting the worst terrorist attack in US history happen under his watch?" the media instead gets excited that there's a Benghazi investigation and reports it every time some new and stupid accusation comes out of the mouths of Republican congressmen.

[Starlight]

they're going after Hillary because she gives them so much ammunition.

A bit. The way the Clintons have chosen to do politics over the years has lent itself to creating things that look like scandals even when they are not. They've been attacked so much that they've developed a paranoia about being attacked, so they try and shield themselves by being obsessively secretive in everything they do, in order to minimize exposure to future Republican probing. But in attempting excessive secrecy they make it look like they must have something to hide, even if they don't.

Your implication was that they go after her under false political pretenses, but that isn't how it looks to me. They're going after her because they have genuine reasons to do so. Benghazi, White Water, sham donor foundations, emails, etc, etc., are all real bonafide scandals, otherwise they wouldn't be targeting her and only her as hard as they've been doing.

Nah, something approaching 90% of the Clinton 'scandals' have had no merit at all. Over the years, the Republicans have generated a mindset that "the Clintons must be doing something wrong because they're the Clintons, and that's what Clintons do", and they view the Clintons as being like the Underwoods on House of Cards.

The email issue is highly unusual because unlike previous Clinton pseudo-scandals (like Benghazi, Vince Foster, etc) it does look like there's probably been some serious wrongdoing by the Clintons.

[seanD]

A bit. The way the Clintons have chosen to do politics over the years has lent itself to creating things that look like scandals even when they are not. They've been attacked so much that they've developed a paranoia about being attacked, so they try and shield themselves by being obsessively secretive in everything they do, in order to minimize exposure to future Republican probing. But in attempting excessive secrecy they make it look like they must have something to hide, even if they don't.

Nah, something approaching 90% of the Clinton 'scandals' have had no merit at all. Over the years, the Republicans have generated a mindset that "the Clintons must be doing something wrong because they're the Clintons, and that's what Clintons do", and they view the Clintons as being like the Underwoods on House of Cards.

The email issue is highly unusual because unlike previous Clinton pseudo-scandals (like Benghazi, Vince Foster, etc) it does look like there's probably been some serious wrongdoing by the Clintons.

Reps are after Clinton because... well, just because. No real reason, just because they're Clintons.

Reps are after Clinton because they're the quintessential definition of corrupt politicians, which even the left agrees (though they defend the Clintons against the attacks anyway based on knee-jerk partisan reaction).

I'll choose the latter. Sounds a lot more logical. Unless you can give a good enough reason why they continue to target Clinton, and only Clinton unjustifiably. Succinctly please.

[Starlight]

SeanD, They've targeted Obama too. The first 7 investigations of Benghazi were anti-Obama. As was the "IRS is targeting the Tea Party" 'scandal'. Not to mention: Birth certificate; him being a Muslim etc.

Obama hasn't acted as paranoid and obsessively-secretive as the Clintons though. And the Clintons have been in national politics for 40 years, whereas Obama's a newcomer, so they've just got more baggage.

[RumTumTugger]

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

only to you who doesn't even know who the TRUE MSM are even though you are getting your information from them.

LOL. The problem is pretty much the opposite. The MSM treats anything the Republicans do as valid, even when it isn't. The MSM has a massive bias towards neutrality and treating everything like it's 50-50: "Republicans say X, Democrats say Y, who can really know the truth?" In reality, over the last 30 years, the Republicans have acted incredibly stupidly and the media has failed to call them out on it, because it treats anything they do as inherently valid.

sorry starlight it is the opposite of what you are saying. The True mainstream media cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn, etc. treats anything the Democrats do as valid, even when it isn't. The the true MSM has a massive bias towards the Democrats: "Democrats say X, Republicans say Y, the republicans are wrong. the truth is Starlight that over the last 40+ years, no matter how incredibly stupidly the Democrats act the media has failed to call them out on it, because it treats anything they do as inherently valid. While calling the republicans out on anything they can (dishonestly in most cases) spin to be wrong.

So instead of reporting "Republicans have started an eighth investigation into Benghazi. When will these idiotic conspiracy theorists stop gratuitously wasting tax-payer money? When will they stop using the deaths of US soldiers for partisan political purposes? Can't they learn a thing or two from the democrats who were content to let there be only one 9/11 investigation despite Bush letting the worst terrorist attack in US history happen under his watch?" the media instead gets excited that there's a Benghazi investigation and reports it every time some new and stupid accusation comes out of the mouths of Republican congressmen.

the TRUE MSM is trying to say the democrats didn't do anything wrong in either case.

As for the difference in how the 2 investigations were handled. HMM Could it be because with 9/11 if the Democrats had continued their investigation things would have come out they did not want known about previous administration's mistakes that led to us not knowing about the coming attacks? And that Republicans know that the current administration is trying to hide the fact that there were signs of what was coming regarding Benghazi that they ignored?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

oh right that couldn't be it because as the true MSM keeps telling you the Democrats can do no wrong and the Republicans are wrong to try and get to the truth.

sorry Starlight there is more to both stories then you are being led to believe by the media sources you listen to want you to know. Those media sources that are the TRUE MSM who have a bias towards the Democrats.

[seanD]

SeanD, They've targeted Obama too. The first 7 investigations of Benghazi were anti-Obama. As was the "IRS is targeting the Tea Party" 'scandal'. Not to mention: Birth certificate; him being a Muslim etc.

Obama hasn't acted as paranoid and obsessively-secretive as the Clintons though. And the Clintons have been in national politics for 40 years, whereas Obama's a newcomer, so they've just got more baggage.

Sure, the Reps have slung accusations at Obama from the sidelines like both parties normally do against a sitting president of the opposite partisan affiliation, but not anywhere near as active as they've been against Clinton. They've gone after her for at least three decades now. They've never gone after Michelle like they went after her as first lady, and I don't recall at anytime there was even so much as a notion that Obama would be summoned by a grand jury or investigated by an external agency. So there's no real justifiable comparison there.

[seanD]

You would pretty much have to assume an outright political rightwing conspiracy to explain the focus they've had against her for so long in order to justify the ferocious and relentlessness attacks against her. I choose to believe a more rational explanation. That she's just that corrupt and evil, thus she's given them that amount of ammunition against her for all those years.

[Starlight]

only to you who doesn't even know who the TRUE MSM are even though you are getting your information from them.

Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance, but actually I don't generally get any information from the MSM, as I don't trust them. Instead I follow a wide variety of alternative news sources. My favorites include: Secular Talk, TYT, Last Week Tonight, Reddit, The Daily Show, The International Business Times, Digg, The Intercept, Buzzfeed, and The Majority Report. I do occasionally see an article or clip from a MSM source when some other source happens to link to them.

I like to stay well-informed about US politics, and have generally listened to US political news/podcast/opinion pieces for multiple hours everyday for the last several years, because I like to be listening to something while I'm working, or when gaming.

But a problem that I see happen with a lot of conservatives in the US who reject the MSM is that they turn around and embrace what I would call "anti-fact anti-knowledge" news sources, that give a lot of false 'facts' and a whole lot of indoctrination, and end up making the hearer a lot more ignorant than someone who's watched no news at all. Various surveys have, for example, shown that the people who watch Fox news know less basic facts about world events than people who say they don't watch news. The Tea Party was born out of an anti-fact bubble, where people watched/listened to so much false news (Rush Limbaugh etc) and got their heads so full of anti-facts that their understanding of the world was completely different to reality. A lot of people on the Left assumed that the Tea Partiers must be racist, and that that was why they hated Obama so much, but reporter after reporter who went in and talked to them came back and said, "no, racism isn't what's driving these people, what's driving them is a complete misunderstanding of facts about the world." A lot of these people genuinely believed things like the idea that Obama wasn't going to step down after his presidency, and was genuinely seizing power to make himself a dictator, was going to confiscate everyone's guns by force etc, and genuinely thought he was doing this because he was a Muslim who hated America. I think conservatives in the US need to be particularly careful not to fall into the trap of the right-wing-media-bubble of anti-knowledge that is quite prevalent outside of the MSM, because the anti-fact right-wing-media-bubble is pretty large in the US.

The the true MSM has a massive bias towards the Democrats: "Democrats say X, Republicans say Y, the republicans are wrong.

Nope, doesn't happen. The MSM has pro-establishment pro-corporate pro-false-neutrality bias, and an anti-anything-outside-the-two-parties / anti-Sanders bias. I would love to see them call out Republican idiocy, but unfortunately they don't. CNN, in particular, is full of ignorant talking heads who say essentially "well the Democrats say X and the Republicans say Y. But we're not capable of working out who's right, so we'll just discuss the fact that they're both making accusations for the next hour."

over the last 40+ years, no matter how incredibly stupidly the Democrats act the media has failed to call them out on it, because it treats anything they do as inherently valid.

Agreed, but the problem is that they equally treat anything the Republicans choose to do as equally valid. Because both parties pay the media a lot of money for their political ads, and in exchange the media treats anything either party says or does as valid. The consequence of this is that US politics gets steadily worse because the media no longer acts as a watchdog that calls parties out for their misbehavior and instead just acts as their agent for press releases.

Could it be because with 9/11 if the Democrats had continued their investigation things would have come out they did not want known about previous administration's mistakes that led to us not knowing about the coming attacks?

I think the dems were scared of being seen as using the deaths of Americans on 9/11 as a political football. They instead wanted to be seen as rallying the nation together in a time of crisis to support decisive American action.

But frankly I think that 9/11 should have been investigated a lot more thoroughly, especially since it has become clear just how much Bush was warned about the imminent Al Qaeda attacks and the fact that he and Cheney both fled D.C shortly after those warnings to go to remote parts of the country for one of the longest presidential vacations in history. And Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had been part of PNAC in 1997 that had called for a US invasion of Iraq and noted that it would take a long time to get the US public on side So I think that people in the Bush administration were probably content to let 9/11 happen after being warned about it by the CIA, because they saw the political potential of it. They weren't exactly panicking:

The only testimony Bush ended up giving was secret testimony to the Republican-appointed 9/11 report chairman, with Cheney accompanying him to make sure he didn't say anything out of line.

I'm not generally big on conspiracy theories... this is probably the only one I believe in fact (unless you count Clinton's emails / the Clinton Foundation, or my general opinion that the MSM is untrustworthy due to being run by large media conglomerates). I think the dems did themselves a huge disservice by not investigating 9/11 further. But that's part and parcel of their terrible, terrible, political strategies they've followed over the last 30 years.

the current administration is trying to hide the fact that there were signs of what was coming regarding Benghazi that they ignored?

Sounds like reasonable grounds for one investigation, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't need eight investigations to discover. And yes, they've found that there were signs Muslims around the world were getting more agitated and diplomatic staff around the world were feeling more threatened, and so they'd taken various steps to try to increase security generally. But it isn't surprising that there was eventually an attack and someone eventually died... like many did at Muslim hands under Bush. If Republicans are truly concerned in general about security levels at consulates, they probably shouldn't prune all the federal budgets so vigorously.