Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwaway2016b 3564 days ago
Hillary is far, far more deserving of that label than Trump. To campaign and donate millions of dollars on her behalf requires ignorance, a seriously twisted moral compass, or some financial and political incentives that you don't want to talk about.
1 comments
JoeAltmaier 3563 days ago
She's spent her life struggling to help children and single parents. Donations fund her charity that has helped millions worldwide. To twist that into something bad is just more of the political smokescreen that plagues any woman in public office.
link
jimmywanger 3563 days ago
You're saying this is a sexist thing?

She was linked to Whitewater, was that because she was a woman?

She constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton....

She moved to New York just so she could run for senator.

She and Bill also spent 3 million dollars on her daughter's wedding. Where did she come up with that money, considering that a President's salary is in the mid six figures?

Oh that's right, she (and Bill) get quarter million dollar speaking fees at Goldman Sachs.

What part of all that would not be reprehensible if she were a man, and if she were a man, wouldn't this all be dug up and thrown into his/her face if you were running for president?

How is pointing out moral turpitude a "political smokescreen that plagues every woman in public office"?

link
JoeAltmaier 3562 days ago
Great list: Like any number of men get away with and no comment. None of that is reprehensible; that is all business as usual. A good fraction of our Senators are 'carpet baggers', not been brought up before. Loyalty to a spouse is lauded if its a man being loyal. #2 speaking fees is George Bush but nobody brought him up. And 'linked to' is another smokescreen catchphrase, slings mud without having to show any real problem.
link
jimmywanger 3561 days ago
Yes, and none of those men are currently running for president.

If a man did all these things, and were running for POTUS, they'd get raked over the coals, just like Clinton is. What's your point?

Also, Clinton has made it a point to argue for "the right to be believed" for sexual assault victims. And she went to bat for her husband before that statement to cast doubt on his accusers? http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assa...

What a two-faced person who should not be president.

link