Transient wrote:And Trump invites Putin to hack into the DNC and release the info to journalists, affecting a US election.
So we're worried about what Trump is saying, and not worried about what Hillary has been doing?
Second, do you view that Russia comment as sincere and literal, or possibly a not-very-subtle jab at the idea that Russia probably already has them, because of the email scandal?
Third, you do realize if Russia had the capacity to do what Trump invited with that comment, they would do it regardless of his suggestion? Your point works against you - It's a demonstration that your election processes are vulnerable to outside influence and that didn't become the case
because someone pointed it out.
Just because she's shit with her emails doesn't mean she isn't competent in other ways.
But emails aside there are many other issues with Hillary's track record that demonstrate she's incompetent in many other areas that a presidential candidate should be competent in. For all those areas where the argument is 'Hillary is experienced in politics and Trump is not' we can point to evidence that she
actively demonstrated her incompetence during that time.
On being secretary of state, aside from deliberately de-securing her main communication channel when in a position where the emails you're receiving are
extremely sensitive and of grave national security concern if known to outsiders, there is also the Benghazi affair which demonstrates that she was not effective in the role when put in a situation that demanded decisive action.
On a different front, the ability to work effectively with those around you and show suitable respect/deference to subject-matter experts is absolutely critical to any role in high-level politics. The president cannot presume to know everything, or indeed very much really, and instead must be a master of synthesizing advice from various sources around them (top... men...). Yet the emerging stories about how Hillary mistreats and disrespects staffers and protective services that surround her actively demonstrate that she does not have that ability.
In terms of public speaking, empathy and understanding, being the person that is responsible for launching wars (or finding ways not to), we only really need to draw attention to a single quote from Hillary: "Women have always been the primary victims of war." to see that this is not a person understanding the magnitude of such a task and the enormous consequences inflicted on populations, mostly men, at times of war. See again also: Benghazi.
How about obvious, long standing, uncorrected hypocrisy despite ample opportunity to set the record straight?
Direct quote from Hillary: "I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.". This despite her
historical and continuing refusal to address serious allegations made by many women against her own husband.
Quite aside from these issues, are we just going to ignore the
incredible coincidence that members of the same families keep ending up on the presidential ticket? How can we reconcile this with the notion of democratically electing the most suitable person to the highest position of office, when it would have to be an immeasurably immense coincidence to find 2 such people in the same family, married to each other no less, and not blood related even? The fact that Hillary is Bill's wife is an active indictment of the failures in the political process, is it not incredibly obvious that this is a soft means of evading the 'no more than 2 terms' restriction and reducing the role of president to, in effect, a torch to be carried by a kind of immortal corporation (i.e. the 'presidential families')? It's not a serious point against Hillary, but as a think piece... come the fuck on, really?
While it's easy to raise questions about Trump's competency given his lack of political background, it's equally (perhaps more) valid to raise serious concerns about Hillary's competency. Overall the US election looks set to be a choice between shit and shit, but I take issue with the rabid rationalizing that Hillary is in any way suitable simply because she's in politics already. She
is a dreadful, deceitful person and it would be a grave shame if she spends 4 or 8 years in command of one of the major powers. At the very least I wouldn't like to see it eventuate on a tide of blind, rabid support in the form of 'at least it's not the other guy', because that's incredibly sad (and misinformed).
