That's an interesting equivalence, do you also think that Hillary Clinton is exactly the same as someone who would have been charged with a triple homicide but wasn't read his Miranda rights and was let go instead?
So much for idealism and fairness.
Lol, so no issue with the false equivalence between speeding 1 mph over the speed limit being "the standard that is being applied to Hillary Clinton," but issues when it's pointed out that false equivalences can be construed both ways?
Who did she kill and what was the technicality on which she was freed after her arrest?
When did she get a speeding ticket? Heck, when did she last drive herself?
FWIW, the "equivalence game" being played is Clinton points out that Trump is racist, so he says she is racist. She points out his crooked business dealings, so he claims she is crooked. This is actually the FOX equivalence called "fair and balanced".
Well you have it a bit backwards, Clinton and crooked have been connected since before Trump was in the public eye. It's a deliberate part of her strategy to show that he's no better than she is, that's to try and undermine people who'd vote on an ethical basis by telling them they have no candidate at all. There's little question that a voter who's prime value is ethics isn't voting for her, so she's trying to force them to disengage and stay home.
As far as racism, it's pretty much a false claim against either of them. I think Clinton's policies will continue to be damaging to minority success, but since that's a tougher analysis to see than the freebies she's gonna hand out it'll be tough to convince the impacted voters. Maybe someday, minorities will finally ask why their situation gets worse the more they put Democrats into office, but clearly not today.
In any event, it's absolutely rich that Clinton has these issues now, and never did when Trump was another donor that she wanted to woo. Apparently failing to denounce a racist fast enough makes Trump a racist, but attending weddings thrown by a racist and politically whoring for his donations doesn't it.
I don't think you have to ignore Trump's business practices, but to get to where you are going you have to extrapolate that he will sell influence in office based on that history. I don't see that as a certainty. Whereas with Hillary, the BEST you can say for the situation is that it is literally the most prominent case of the violation of appearance of impropriety in recent memory, and that's assuming, which is a BIG assumption, that no one making a contribution thought they were buying influence (given the actual practices in some of the originating countries the chance of this is microscopic) and that no one ever acted favorably - in any way - because of a donation (which is a conclusion we've already seen looks to be at risk).
This is so partisan a statement that I have to believe that you know you are bull*censored*ting us.
Look up pay to play, appearance of impropriety, heck look at your arguments on the "dark money" threads and there's really no way to reconcile any sensible reading of the way things should work with what actually occurred with the Clinton foundation. It should have been a no brainer that it be divorced from the Clinton's the entire time she was Secretary of State. Once again, something that would be blindingly obvious and handled completely differently for any person not named Clinton.
Trump won't necessarily use the same skills that got him to where he is in business once he gets into office? How can you possibly even think that, let alone blurt it out where the rest of us can see you flailing?
Trump will use a bunch of the same skills, and the vast majority of them will be to our benefit. Anyone who has experience with actually getting deals done has usefull skills to a President. Only blind partisanship would let you imply otherwise.
Am I concerned he'd use petty bribery? Not in the least. Leaving aside that you're making assertions, without actually proving them, there's no way he'd be able to do the same under the scrutiny that would apply in the WhiteHouse. And in any event, Hillary has already demonstrated that she can and will set up systems that could easily facilitate direct bribes for exercises of government power (whether she actually took them is irrelevant to that question), so I'm not seeing your objection as anything but partisan hypocrisy.
And to be blunt I'm not concerned at all about your claims that I'm flailing. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no ability to be anything but partisan on any thread in the last year, so I can't see how you could claim anyone who disagrees with you is anything else. It's not like you have a choice, you have to attack because your own candidate is fundamentally flawed and indefensible. She may win despite that, but it'll just usher in a new level of corruption that hurts us all.
Corruption in politicians and buying of favor is absolutely inconsistent with our way of life. That's something the left is usually up in arms about, the idea of being able to buy influence. What's different here? Are you really arguing that graft and corruption are good?
As pointed out, this is utter nonsense. I ask again how you can say this with a straight face.
Say what? That it used to be a tenant of the left to root out public corruption? That's just a fact. That if a Republican had done even one quarter of what Hillary has they would have been indicted, that's a fact too. That you love to speculate and treat as true rumors about politicians on the Right and ignore and suppress them about those on the left? Also a fact.
Corruption is directly contrary to the Rule of Law. That's axiomatic.