——-

Yes, because she’s not the President. Even if you think Hillary’s behavior was “overlooked and tolerated” (what the hell were the Republican-led Benghazi investigations that produced nothing which led to an FBI investigation into Clinton’s private e-mail server which at most proved that she was sloppy with e-mails), is the correct response to be lenient with Trump because of “fairness”?

———

Stormy Daniels is a porn star, and the sensationalism of the story would get a lot of attention regardless of who was President. It doesn’t help that Trump and his surrogates keep feeding the fire by making easily disprovable lies about it. A lot of Trump stories would die down if Trump himself didn’t feed the fire.

Clinton was held to a higher standard because she was in positions of power and influence, politically, for most of her life. There is nothing wrong with that. She made some mistakes in her political roll and those were looked into. They seem to have been nothing. Trump was not held to any standard because he was who everyone knew him to be. He held no political influence and he should not have won the election. Now that Trump is in office, the dealings of his company are scrutinized by the media, political groups and I imagine the Special council. I believe there are even legal suits filed. 

Just because the Benghazi hearings didn't produce indictments, does not excuse the other things that were overlooked.

-  March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena for Clinton to turn over emails. Clinton’s Emails Were Deleted Sometime Between March 25-31, 2015. This is undisputed. What is disputed was what the emails contained. "Sloppy at most"?! Come on...

- The tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the Hillary investigation. What was discussed, and more importantly, why did the current AG of the US agree to this meeting?

- Why did the DNC ,which was then being run by the Clinton campaign, deny the FBI’s requests to examine the servers supposedly hacked by Russia, when the russians were supposedly interfering with the election.

- Why was an FBI plant/informant/spy placed in the Trump campaign without Trumps knowledge, and why wasn't one placed in Clinton's campaign as well?

- Why did FBI Director James Comey draft a statement about the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton email investigation in May of 2016, before even interviewing Clinton in July? 

I could certainly go on, but don't try to tell me that Trump would have received the same "considerations", and that the coverage he received would have been anywhere the same as what Clinton received.

——

Yes. No. No. 

Let’s spin this around: The media has been covering Trump’s lifestyle in the same way for the last 40 years. Is the Stormy coverage, in terms of attention, any different from the way the media covered Trump during his affair with Marla and his divorce from Ivanka? I was a /child/ when all of that happened, and I was fully aware of what was going on because of the incessant media coverage.

Are you going to argue that if a pornstar had claimed that she had an affair with a sitting US President, the story would not gather media attention?

——

Your points have been debated ad nauseum during the election, and I think you’re off, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that Clinton got away with being corrupt. So your assertion is we should just ignore any impropriety on the part of Trump because we tolerated it in Hillary? Does the Right have any integrity or is false equivalence and Schandenfreude all that matters?

Also, out of your 16 posts on this board, how many are not about Trump?

Nice attempt at a straw man argument, but I mentioned in my first post on this recent topic about how I'm not making the equivalency argument. Not sure how much clearer I could be for you. But you'll hear what you want to hear...... My point was, that the LOUDEST Trump bashers somehow were silent on Hillary's acts. They championed her, while ignoring her actions. But they're certainly quick to jump to any accusation against Trump, no matter how unfounded or absurd. 

So what? I'm interested in the subject. I don't post a lot because I don't have time to. Also most topics don't interest me enough to post, though I do enjoy reading them. Frankly I don't give a damn if the Thing is stronger than the Hulk.......Does it make anything I've said less legitimate? The more posts the more important they are? The hierarchy and attitudes (such as yours on boards like these), certainly don't encourage people to post anyway.

 At a certain point I get fed up with the constant echo chambering from the same old people bashing Trump. It was bad enough when people were certain he had dementia. It topped off when people were claiming he couldn't even read! Never a correction from anyone on that - not that I expected one. But doesn't some embarrassment or reflection come from making statements like that? 

Sure, Trump says and tweets dumb things. I care about that and don't defend it. But in the end his results are all that really matters to me. I'm not looking for a hero or role model. I find those in my real life. 

 I like his results. I'm happy with the North Korea proceedings. I'm happy with 3.8% unemployment, and the lowest black unemployment in 40? years. I like his tax plan, and that despite Hillary saying it would lead to 3.5 million lost jobs, that the economy has grown tremendously. In fact it's to the point where even the NY Times states that they "Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are"! I'm glad that the first month after the tax cut that the government took in record revenue. I like his recent VA Choice program and Right to Try bill. I'm impressed that after countless previous Presidents promises, that he moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem........ but you keep on talking about the important stuff like how he made a dumb tweet, and keep building up your all important post count .Or better yet try to settle the Hulk vs Thing debate.