26th September 2016, 7:20 AM
Stop pointing out that Trump is more corrupt than Hillary. That isn't the debate we're having here, because I agree. How much more corrupt is Trump than Hillary?
That much more! I know! I SAID I'm voting for Hillary after all, but you can't possibly make me excited about the prospect.
As for "proof" she is corrupt, what exactly are you asking for? You must admit that standards of evidence for corrupt systems HAVE to change, or we'll never actually be able to conclude ANYONE is guilty of corruption. We're at a point in society were we don't need to actually convict a tenured professor in a court of law before deciding he's probably sexually harrassing people. A sufficient number of accusations are enough for us to basically say "where there's smoke there's fire". So look, the two big name Clinton scandals ended up with no proof, but you'd be a fool to not look at that plus all the contributions plus all the backroom connections and not at least tilt your head and go "hmmmmmmmmmm" really hard. Even if NONE of that actually is a result of bribes and backroom deals, a presidential candidate should know better than to do stuff that LOOKS that bad. This is a hard shift in my own positions, believe me, but I've realized that it's necessary, or we won't be able to judge half the things Trump himself does due to lack of any convictions in a court of law.
Now again, you ask me to point to any ONE example of concrete corruption on Hillary's part, and I would say to you "show me ONE example of a police officer shooting a black person due to racism". That's a question that misses the entire point, because the racism is revealed as systemic, and can't exactly be shown in singular examples. Better yet, "show me ONE high temperature day that's absolutely caused by global warming". The question itself is a major misunderstanding of what's being claimed. It's about trends, not zeroing in on exact instances. Hillary Clinton shows a distinct trend that sure rhymes with corruption, and if I had the choice, I'd pick a candidate who's background wasn't so eyebrow raising. That's for sure. Also, YES, I WILL say it again, the system IS corrupt! It's not irredeemable, it's not without good people trying to do good things and change stuff, but it suffers from systemic corruption, and the flat out normalization of behavior we shouldn't tolerate. I'm voting for a candidate I don't entirely trust, and the fact that we got here should be proof enough that there's some systemic issues that need working out, and calling it out for what it is is isn't the solution, but it's a necessary first step.
Listen, I'm not trying to argue that Trump is better, that's ridiculous. You don't need to tell me that Hillary is by FAR the better option. It's why I'm voting for her. She might actually do some real good, while Trump might send the military to dismantle the internet or something. What I'm trying to say is that if you're attempting to sell me on Hillary as not just the better candidate, but the best possible candidate, you're barking up the wrong tree. It'll take a LOT more to convince me of that, and bizarrely, I'm in the position where the proof that she's a great candidate will come AFTER I've voted for her.
That much more! I know! I SAID I'm voting for Hillary after all, but you can't possibly make me excited about the prospect.
As for "proof" she is corrupt, what exactly are you asking for? You must admit that standards of evidence for corrupt systems HAVE to change, or we'll never actually be able to conclude ANYONE is guilty of corruption. We're at a point in society were we don't need to actually convict a tenured professor in a court of law before deciding he's probably sexually harrassing people. A sufficient number of accusations are enough for us to basically say "where there's smoke there's fire". So look, the two big name Clinton scandals ended up with no proof, but you'd be a fool to not look at that plus all the contributions plus all the backroom connections and not at least tilt your head and go "hmmmmmmmmmm" really hard. Even if NONE of that actually is a result of bribes and backroom deals, a presidential candidate should know better than to do stuff that LOOKS that bad. This is a hard shift in my own positions, believe me, but I've realized that it's necessary, or we won't be able to judge half the things Trump himself does due to lack of any convictions in a court of law.
Now again, you ask me to point to any ONE example of concrete corruption on Hillary's part, and I would say to you "show me ONE example of a police officer shooting a black person due to racism". That's a question that misses the entire point, because the racism is revealed as systemic, and can't exactly be shown in singular examples. Better yet, "show me ONE high temperature day that's absolutely caused by global warming". The question itself is a major misunderstanding of what's being claimed. It's about trends, not zeroing in on exact instances. Hillary Clinton shows a distinct trend that sure rhymes with corruption, and if I had the choice, I'd pick a candidate who's background wasn't so eyebrow raising. That's for sure. Also, YES, I WILL say it again, the system IS corrupt! It's not irredeemable, it's not without good people trying to do good things and change stuff, but it suffers from systemic corruption, and the flat out normalization of behavior we shouldn't tolerate. I'm voting for a candidate I don't entirely trust, and the fact that we got here should be proof enough that there's some systemic issues that need working out, and calling it out for what it is is isn't the solution, but it's a necessary first step.
Listen, I'm not trying to argue that Trump is better, that's ridiculous. You don't need to tell me that Hillary is by FAR the better option. It's why I'm voting for her. She might actually do some real good, while Trump might send the military to dismantle the internet or something. What I'm trying to say is that if you're attempting to sell me on Hillary as not just the better candidate, but the best possible candidate, you're barking up the wrong tree. It'll take a LOT more to convince me of that, and bizarrely, I'm in the position where the proof that she's a great candidate will come AFTER I've voted for her.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)