If you support Trump, you are destroying our culture

Do you want to comment on Hillary's ties to the kkk?

Look into Robert Byrd the kkk and Hillary's relationship with him.

So the Russian government gets uranium then Hillary mysteriously gets $500,000 from a bank with links to the kremlin

Counterfactuals are impossible to verify. I would say that I find the chants of "Lock her up" and the bold proclamations from people who have no legal education, who have no familiarity with the relevant caselaw, who often haven't even read the pertinent clauses in Title 18 of the US Code, to say "Oh she's defintely a criminal, definitely guilty, she should go to prison". If you probe that you often discover they seem to think just having a private email server was a crime and therefore she is guilty. And so you have a noxious mix of people whose ignorance of the law is being played on, and people with sinister motivations using that ignorance to start advancing very dangerous ideas (like locking up your political opponents) that are profoundly, fundamentally, obnoxious to the Anglo-American political tradition.

My view is that she did not break the law, and I saw that as a law student with a long interest in American law. It's an issue on which people who are qualified to opine can and do differ; the arguments could be finely balanced. That's why we have a judicial process, not trial by mob. By the way, the FBI director who decided not to send the case on to the US Attorney for potential prosecution, James Comey... he's a Republican. He was the Deputy Attorney-General in the Bush Administration. We're not talking about some pathetic little creature of the Clintons who was pulled out of a Wall Street firm to stitch up the FBI for them.



Trustworthy in regards of what? Our political system is based on reason, on verification, on self-interest. I trust Hillary Clinton will behave in precisely the way her political allegiances, her history, her ideological tendencies (as can be seen in the books she's written), her obligations to her supporters (in the labor unions, in the environmental movement, in the gay rights movement, as well as others in finance and technology sectors), would incline her to behave. I don't know Hillary Clinton personally so I'm not going to use these emotive words like trust in that kind of slightly pathetic "Oh I'm so deeply wounded, I trusted her" sense.

I trust Hillary Clinton would never, say, order her Attorney-General to do something that would undermine gay rights; not only because it would be contrary to her general political motivations and ideology but because she has been strongly backed financially by the gay rights movement and in the American political system she owes them. I'm not mentioning the gay thing because it's some particular political red line for me; I mention it because it's an example of an issue where we know exactly how she will behave, and "trust" is irrelevant. Her fundamental political interests are tied to her behaving in a certain way.

I trust she would never fundamentally betray Americans interests out of some bizarre sense of loyalty to the president of Russia. I trust she would be generally strong and emphatic on national security, which I care about. If you take the time to read up on a politician's history, their views, their associations... you'll rarely be surprised by what they do. The way they will approach any particular problem is usually fairly predictable based on the above considerations, and while that decision-making matrix is perhaps more favourable to capital, rather than labour, than I would prefer, broadly she is acceptable. When placed next to Trump, she is positively desirable.

The best way to predict her future behaviour is to look at her past behaviour, which is that she is broadly a middle of the road democrat who will find a balance between the interests of labor and capital, who will be supportive of the rights of minorities, who will generally continue to uphold the rule of law in America. I don't see what trust has to do with it; what are people who are claiming she can't be trusted saying she is going to do that will surprise us?

The email scandal appears to more an issue of negligence but the donations to the Clinton Foundation related to the uranium deal reek of corruption IMO.

You know if you post your essay on TSR you could get accused of plagiarism.

What date did Clinton (along with the nine other regulatory agencies) approve the sale of the uranium company? What date are you claiming Hillary Clinton received a transfer of $500,000? What was the source of that money? How do they have links to the Kremlin?

Even if this were true, which it's not, it's hilarious how Trump supporters are so hypocritical and inconsistent; you people love Putin and Russia, you're basically ready to bend over for him the second Trump becomes president, if he does, and hand over to the Russians basically everything they want. You people can't stop talking about how wonderful Putin is, but it's bad to allow a private American company to do a transaction with Russia?

I'm not sure

difference between improving relations with Russia and corruption

I've never seen anyone present anything in respect of the uranium that resembles a credible case against her, morally or legally.

What are you asserting is the problem? Remember Clinton as Secretary of State was merely one of nine regulatory agency heads who were involved in signing off, none of them were more important than any other in the sign-off.

But I'm open-minded; what are you claiming is the issue?

Did you even know who Robert Byrd was before you were told to care about this by Breitbart? I did. I've had a long interest in American politics and I knew who he was when he was actually still a senator.

The idea that there is anything comparable between Hillary Clinton having the ordinary political courtesies and relationships with a democrat who was in the senate for 50 years, from the 1960s until 2010, but who was associated with the Klan in the 1930s when he was young... the idea that this is comparable to the fact that the current KKK currently supports Donald Trump... well, either you're so brainwashed that you're no longer capable of assessing such obvious distinctions or you're dishonest in which case there's no part debating it with you.

tokenistic

corrupt

In other words you don't have a clue, and you're so lazy and indifferent to the truth that you can't even be bothered to look up the details when challenged on it.

Nothing you say can be taken seriously.



You've just admitted you don't have a ****ing clue about this deal. You don't know what the payments were, who they were from, when they were made, who they were made to, whether Secretary Clinton was aware of them, whether if she was aware of them they changed the decision she made... you don't know any of this, but still babble on about corruption as if you have even the most basic factual understanding of the issue you're raising.

Going to ignore your comments from here, you detract far more from this thread than you add and life is too short for the aggravation

It's not justified, it's nonsense. There is no conspiracy by the "illuminati" to "destroy the white race".

And whatever their grievances, none of it justifies the destruction of the rule of law.

I disagree. Someone doesn't have to be intelligent to be cunning. He is extremely unintelligent, it's very clear from the fact he can barely construct a coherent sentence.

How is she a warmonger? Try to be specific.



How is she tokenistic? Try to be specific.



How is she corrupt? Try to be specific.

I wager that you'll be just as clueless, just as utterly incapable of actually citing any facts, as joecphillips has turned out to be.

@AlexanderHam Not everyone voting for Trump likes him or even shares his opinions, they just recognise that he's the lesser of two evils.

How is she tokenistic? Try to be specific.

How is she corrupt? Try to be specific.