“Have you ever truly looked at Clinton with the same critical eye?”

Hillary Clinton

Some guy on someone else’s Facebook page: “Have you ever truly looked at Clinton with the same critical eye with an open mind or you just supporting the party?”

Me: “Hillary Clinton is probably one of the most closely scrutinized people in U.S. politics. There has been a decades-long right-wing smear campaign against her (much of which has been bought into by the left), and every mistake she’s ever made has been examined with a spotlight and a high-powered microscope. So yes — I have looked at Clinton with a critical eye. It has been literally impossible not to.”

I would have said more, but I try not to burst into long streams of invective on other people’s Facebook pages.

{advertisement}
“Have you ever truly looked at Clinton with the same critical eye?”
{advertisement}
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

5 thoughts on ““Have you ever truly looked at Clinton with the same critical eye?”

  1. 1

    And if Trump were looked at at the same level of scrutiny as Clinton, we’d see his tax returns going back 20 years, his email, his and his spouse’s affairs, etc…

  2. 2

    Then you support a women who takes MILLIONS in donations from middle eastern countries that EXECUTE Gays? She puts on stage a devote Muslim like Khan who advocates for Sharia law that calls for all gays to be executed to basically put them out of their gay misery.

  3. 3

    She puts on stage a devote Muslim like Khan who advocates for Sharia law that calls for all gays to be executed to basically put them out of their gay misery.

    Dominick Mezzapesa @ #2: Are you fucking kidding me? You’re spouting right-wing smears from Breitbart? Debunked; debunked.

    Do not pull this shit in my blog again. Do it again, and I will block you so fast it will make your head spin.

  4. 4

    Re: @2:

    It’s not just debunked nonsense, but the amazing double-standard in how guilt-by-association is deployed against Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump.

    @2 would have us condemn Clinton for “Sharia law” and for “all gays to be executed”, charges that are ludicrously opposite of the positions she actually holds as evidenced by her own words, actions, the official platform of the Democratic party, etc. All based on a wobbly chain of association. Even if the claims in that wobbly chain were, in fact, true [and they typically aren’t], it’s a ridiculous stretch to hold her responsible for every action of everyone 2-steps removed.

    Donald Trump, on the other hand, has had trouble disavowing support from white supremacists, who express support for the things that Trump actually says and supports. The chain of association is a single link, and they aren’t ascribing positions to him that are particularly divergent.

    Guilt by association is foolish. If judged by every belief and action of everyone associated with us two steps removed, we’d all be fit to hang. But it’s doubly foolish to use it to tar someone with beliefs they clearly don’t hold.

  5. f.
    5

    Steven: For that matter, the current Republican platform is probably the most anti-LGBTQ they’ve ever had – advocating “reparative therapy” for children and repealing marriage equality. And then they want to fix their mouths to tell us they’re the great protectors of LGBTQ rights? I don’t think so.

Comments are closed.