cheezcake
Member
I mean there's no actual there there to this story except in the fact that Donna Brazile is dumb and Podesta didn't report it. No evidence Hillary used this knowledge to her advantage, no evidence she even got these questions. No evidence of anything except Donna Brazile is a terrible politician who thought the risk of sending these obvious questions was worth a damn.
That is a story and it should be reported. But I feel it is a stupid story because it has so little actual impact on anything: the election or the primary or anything.
This is not a point I think I have major hard disagreement with. I disagree philosophically because of how I interpret the level of fair scrutiny to Hillary. I do not, based on the way reporting has been done this season, trust the news to properly report a story like this. Therefore, I agree with Hillary's decision to be quiet. I think the positives she would have got from being ethically sound would have been nullified by the negatives of the optics of this story. I mean Hillary is a uniquely unfairly treated politician and always has been. And putting on my politician hat, I believe I would have made the same decision. Were it another candidate I may not have. But Hillary has to walk on egg shells.
I don't believe in unilaterally disarming. If for example the Republicans had a strategy where throwing out nothing but lies was actually working to destroy a Democratic candidate, I'd be in favor of hitting back worse. Why? Because real lives will be destroyed if we don't get the Supreme Court. And I personally don't think how clean I look is more valuable than that fact. And I don't merely believe this is a matter of two equally respectable positions. We know the incalculable damage Republican policies and obstructionism has done. And I'm willing to play unfair, within the legal bounds, in order to destroy them for it.
And at the end of the day when LGBT rights are being expanded and voters rights are being saved and abortion is preserved we can argue about how muddy a person got afterwards. But given how history has always been written, people remember the sum totality of your best actions, not the dirt every president ever has had to occasionally wade into in order to win.
I think at the very least however you view ethics and its flexibility, you can agree that every single President has at one time or another been questionable ethically. It is almost impossible not to get muddy in politics.
Absolutely. I think we're pretty much at an understanding now, at least, I can definitely see where you're coming from. It's always a bit odd having to be reminded how cartoonishly villainous the republican party is as someone not from the states.