OK, so why are such articles only written for hillary? Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common. How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
>OK, so why are such articles only written for hillary?
As opposed to who? Trump? Aren't enough negative articles also written for Trump? Besides he is so rich that he doesn't needed "meagre" 250K speeches to influence him -- he probably has voting favors for his business partners and his own business interests pre-planned already.
>Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common.
Because even if another 100,000 politicians do it, she's the one who'll be probably sitting in the White House...
You'd rather people prioritize criticizing some second rate senator from Alabama or South Dakota, or the potential next President?
>How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
The latter none at all? Else we'd see it for other female politicians too.
Wow that is world-class naiveté. Female politicians of every stripe are bullied daily. This is business as usual for half of our population. And its compounded by guys constantly replying "Hey it isn't happening to me; I don't see it so it must not exist".
I don't see politicians as male or female and could not care less what sex they are. Are they fit for office is the real question.
Female politicians are just hit with some special charges related to their sex. But male and female politicians are hit with all kinds of shit all the time. Compared to the avalanche of accusations that go to both, having some special accusations because you're a woman politician is not much. Plus, in the current PC climate, most respected outlets don't do that at all -- it's down to the "yellow press" so to speak to do that.
(Besides most, if not all, deserve to be called all kinds of shit anyway, as they are crappy politicians, male or female).
Convenient to ignore the abuse heaped on female politicians (hell any professional) daily. Again, denial that there's a whole special category of female-bashing is not an argument. I recommend reading up on it.
"Convenient to ignore the abuse heaped on female politicians (hell any professional) daily. "
Get of of HN and back to Jezebel.
The position that females face 'bullying' every day in business and politics is beyond false. It's that kind of rubbish narrative that drives otherwise normal people to vote for a crazy person like Trump.
I have three sisters, two mothers, 3 aunts, a girlfriend (and ex girlfriends), and 6 female cousins - and a 20 year career working in which 50% of my colleagues were females, and several female bosses. Almost all of whom are 'professional women in business'.
You're suggesting that someone commenting on HN hasn't had your amazing experience of 'having spoken to a woman with a job?'?
Again - total and complete rubbish.
Not only are you wrong - you have it upside down: women are far more likely to be 'bullied' by other women in the office, not men. My mother was a VP of customer service, and more than 50% of the time she dealt with extremely petty politics, name calling, shaming, playground antics and other such rubbish among here 90%+ female staff.
What universe is that happening in? There have been around 50 smoke-screen fake 'scandals' invented around Hillary in particular. None have come to anything. Millions mis-spent in tax money on what amounts to political slander.
Hillary's emails? Potential mishandling of classified information, violations of record keeping laws, and perjury. That's significant, and has nothing to do with her gender.
Which investigation do you think was mere bullying and not about something significant?
That one, like all the others, was investigated and nothing turned up. To keep repeating those refuted claims is more of the smokescreen. Key word of a smokescreen: "Potential" You can imply something was done wrong with no evidence.
A) Is running for President
B) Is married to an ex-President, and the most influential man in the world.
C) Has a $500M slush-fund into which money from nefarious places is being invested - and it's not controlled by campaign spending laws.
D) Money was given to her from individuals (more than 50% of them) that she was dealing with as Sec of State - which is a massive conflict of interest on it's own, and she did give many favours that we know about, and it's just the top of the iceberg.
E) She was brought up in the article.
F) Is probably the highest paid circuit speaker in the world, or was, up until recently.
None of the above is true for anyone else.
That's why.
As far are your 'picking on women' bit ... oh please, this kind of argument makes my skin crawl. Corruption can't hide behind panties, at least outside of campus 'safe zones' where the facts don't matter. 'But she's a girl' is not an argument.
The Clinton Foundation is supposed to be a charity but they spend almost nothing on charity - their expenses are 'conferences', trips, meetings - basically Bill and Hillary's personal expense account for things they cannot bill to the government or some other sponsor. Also, they can make ads that promote 'narrative' and the 'personal brand' of Hillary.
> Fewer than half the jobs promised at the industrial park, built after 366 farmers were evicted from their lands, have materialized. Many millions of dollars earmarked for relief efforts have yet to be spent [six years later]. Mrs. Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham has turned up in business ventures on the island
Which of those appears to be concrete proof of wrongdoing to you? Is there any evidence that her brother benefited from the Foundation's actions? All I see are insinuations.
Ha ha ... the Clinton Foundation is an 'operating foundation' - which means it doesn't give it's money away like other charities. So - if this was like the 'Christian Children's Fund' - than that 88% would be 88% of the money goes to Haiti or wherever, with 12% overhead.
The 'Clinton Fund' doesn't give any money away, the operate their own missions and programs - meaning that - of that 88% , any amount can go to 'consultants' 'lawyers' 'research' 'friends' 'conferences' etc.. And it does. That's a lot of money to spend - and 100% of those people work directly for Clinton Corp..
Because if you receive piles of money while running for president, and then pass on favours after getting it, we call that 'bribery'.
I don't want to sound mean spirited, but your position is incredibly naive.
That she is running for president is extremely relevant.
Same for all politicos.