@Finn dAbuzz,
This nesting is getting tedious, but:
DrewDad wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
And if you remember the fable, eventually the boy was eaten by a wolf.
And if we're to carry this metaphor to it's conclusion, the village survives....
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
So no worries if she's a corrupt liar as long as the village survives?
You're arguing your assumptions as givens, now, and you're not even sticking with the metaphor, in an attempt to score cheap points.
The Republican party has been yapping about "the Clinton's are so corrupt!" for 20 years, now, with nothing to show for it but a bunch of money wasted on witch hunt investigations that went nowhere. It's just background noise, now. The GOP has become the butt of their own joke, at this point. You can't even satirize it, because reality is stupider than anyone could have imagined.
DrewDad wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Given her power, her influence and her time-tested defensive approach of stone-walling, lies, destruction of evidence etc, it's not surprising that she hasn't had to pay for her sins.
That is called begging the question. If she's guilty of destruction of evidence, why hasn't she been successfully prosecuted for it? Your unsubstantiated claims of her utter corruption does not compel me to believe the same.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Which question was that?
"Begging the question" is pretty well known, and if you don't know it you can look it up. You're either too stupid to understand, too lazy to look it up, or lying that you don't know what I mean. Which is it?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Are you really arguing that every guilty party is eventually prosecuted and convicted?
20 years of investigations. Zero indictments, let alone a conviction. She's either a fricking genius, in which case I want her as President, or she's not guilty, in which case there's no impediment to her being President.
DrewDad wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Even you can't seriously argue that she has been entirely transparent when charged with misdeeds.
"Entirely transparent" is a pretty unreachable standard. Has
any president or presidential nominee ever been "entirely transparent?"
Name one.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:So again, because other presidential candidates haven't been entirely transparent, it's A-OK that Clinton isn't either? Are you setting a marker here than you don't care about governmental transparency?
So one must either demand perfect transparency or be a dupe? Huh.
Interestingly, I seem to run into this most often when I talk to Republicans. They accuse liberals of being pie-in-the-sky idealists while having these black-and-white views. I'm sorry that the real world isn't as reductive as you want it to be.
It's actually this complete lack of nuance that upset me the most about George W. Bush. I could deal with his buffoonery, and avoiding service in Vietnam, and his social gaffes, and even making decisions I disagreed with. But he seemed to have no real curiosity.