Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

22. "Always that nagging feeling that something slimy may be going on"

Reply to tularetom (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:01 PM

Apr 2015

which asks the question, at what point do we even begin to consider whether or not at least some of the rumors ARE true?

And possibly the most important question, will we be able to acknowledge the rumor true if provided with real proof or will our willingness to believe in a politician (not just Hillary) be so strong as to blind us to real facts.

Certainly any prominent politician, regardless of party, gender or skin color, will have a certain amount of unpleasant rumors attached to them, it's been a part of politics since forever.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 OP

It just keeps getting better johnnysad Apr 2015 #1

Many will retort -- Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #4

Then they should run... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #9

with all due respect DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #28

I misread your subject line as "Manny will retort" arcane1 Apr 2015 #10

FOX news likes these types of post, why, because I for one do not take anything from FOX Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #15

"I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, just others stating her position." Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #19

I guess I need to state I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, ergo I do not know. Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #20

No, we will point out the garbage of this otherwise... joeybee12 Apr 2015 #23

Which part is untrue? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #24

As long as they paid her a lot for her Vote. Katashi_itto Apr 2015 #27

What did Clinton change from and to? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #2

Both she and Obama changed their positions after worker and human rights were added to the agreement DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #5

So you think Obama got some $$$ out of this too? Metric System Apr 2015 #16

Um, it's sort of explained in the post tularetom Apr 2015 #6

From the article -- Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #7

They probably both supported it all along Renew Deal Apr 2015 #21

The IBtimes article was posted a little while ago, you can see the claims here: emulatorloo Apr 2015 #8

And I questioned the link also. Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #14

Yes, I'm tiring of innuendos that the Clinton Foundation is 'dirty' emulatorloo Apr 2015 #17

I would bet most who post negative about CGI has no idea of the projects which Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #18

A demonstrated quid pro quo? Need to see more evidence. leveymg Apr 2015 #3

Agreed, it's an example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy tularetom Apr 2015 #13

"Always that nagging feeling that something slimy may be going on" Lurks Often Apr 2015 #22

Yuck. And she's supposed to be our best candidate? LittleBlue Apr 2015 #11

Follow the money. AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #12

What a bunch of nonsense. Clinton/Obama didn't change their positions. tritsofme Apr 2015 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Apr 2015 #26