Above anything else, I’m a staunch advocate for believing in facts, even if they don’t support something I want to believe. Unfortunately, far too many people feel the opposite. Instead of seeking out facts or contextually accurate information, they look for “news” sources that tell them what they want to hear, while often ignoring and shunning sources that don’t.
This is called confirmation bias — and it’s rampant in today’s world of social media and the Internet.
Well, one theory I’ve always had is that if the truth about a particular person is really that bad, then their critics shouldn’t have to lie all that often.
Enter Hillary Clinton, an individual who’s had more absurd conspiracies linked to her than possibly any person in history. There are a lot of people in this country who honestly believe she’s a mass murderer who used the State Department in an elaborate pay-for-play international crime syndicate and slept through the Benghazi attack.
Never mind that it’s insane to believe that the Clintons have killed anyone (let alone multiple people); that there’s zero credible evidence showing where the foundation was used as a “pay-for-play scheme”; or that the Benghazi attack occurred during the day here in the United States when Clinton was awake and responding to it — millions of people believe all that nonsense anyway.
But when you get right down to several of the attacks her critics (both on the left and the right) use against her, and you use actual facts when addressing these issues, it’s amazing how practically none of them are true or accurate.
I’ll run through a few of the main ones I’ve seen to prove my point.
She’s responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi: Not only has the late Ambassador Chris Stevens’ own family publicly said it’s ridiculous to believe this, but several investigations (including a few that were led by Republicans) all concluded that Clinton wasn’t at fault.
Oh, and she never issued a “stand-down order” considering that, as Secretary of State, she didn’t have that authority.
She sold 20 percent of the country’s uranium to Russia: Actually, nine different departments had to sign off on this deal and the only person who could have stopped it was President Obama. So, in reality, Clinton had very little to do with this transaction. Furthermore, this involved Russia buying a Toronto-based business that just happened to have mines in several U.S. states; we didn’t actually “sell Russia” 20 percent of our produced uranium.
She’s a fraud on combating climate change because she’s pro-fracking: While it’s true that she’s not entirely against fracking, as in many of these instances, the devil is in the details. She’s not entirely against the process of fracking just as long as there’s local support for it (meaning the residents of the area would have to approve of it), it comes with much stronger environmental regulations and they use more environmentally safe chemicals.
In fact, under Clinton’s rules, fracking would be banned in many areas of the country which currently don’t meet her guidelines. Such as in large parts of Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri and several other states where the process doesn’t follow her standards.
So, while it’s true she’s not entirely against fracking, she’s also not “pro-fracking” to the extent that she doesn’t believe it should have much stricter regulations which can make the process much safer and cleaner.
She’s a shill for Wall Street: Everyone focuses on her speeches, but after eight years as a senator she had exactly one pro-Wall Street vote on her resume. And even when you read through the transcripts of these speeches that have been released, for a “Wall Street shill,” I’m not seeing much more than a pragmatic woman who’s called for more transparency, said that too few or too many regulations is bad, and factually pointed out that Wall Street wasn’t the only reason why our economy crashed in 2008.
Even when she truthfully pointed out that her “public vs. private position” part of the transcript was her referencing the movie Lincoln and how getting policy passed is sometimes an ugly business, her critics didn’t want to believe her — even though she was being honest.
She’s for open borders: Again, nope. She’s basically for a slightly more progressive immigration reform plan than Ronald Reagan passed in 1986; a plan that includes billions of dollars for increased border security.
She’s going to abolish the Second Amendment: While I know this is a popular dog whistle to blow for Republicans against Democrats (they’ve been saying this sort of idiocy against President Obama for eight years), it’s not remotely true. Clinton basically supports expanded background checks, banning people on the no-fly list from being able to buy guns, limits on magazine size and generally making it more difficult for people who shouldn’t come into possession of guns (such as toddlers who gain access to them when they’re not properly stored) from being able to do so.
Her use of a private email server was illegal and she should be in prison: Nope, not according to Republican FBI Director James Comey. After an exhaustive year-long investigation, he concluded that there was nothing illegal tied to Clinton’s use of a private email server. Her opponents couldn’t care less; they want her to fail and they’re going to continue believing whatever nonsense they want to believe.
Luckily the law requires experts instead of a bunch of fools who, no matter what the evidence showed, were never going to believe she wasn’t guilty.
The Clintons got rich off the Clinton Foundation: Not only do the Clintons not earn a salary from their foundation, but it has an A-rating from a charity watchdog organization that found 88 percent of all the money raised goes toward charitable causes.
She’s a left-wing socialist/no better than a Republican: This is one that I find rather hilarious as you have Republicans who call Clinton a socialist (like they have Obama for the last 8 years), while the far-left has often accused her of being no better than a Republican/Republican light/more conservative than most Republicans.
Sorry, but she can’t be both a “socialist” and “no better than a Republican” — which means both sides are clearly being irrational, if not outright delusional.
She’s crooked and corrupt: At this point, is there a politician (or human being, for that matter) that we know more about than Hillary Clinton? After nearly a quarter century of attacks; her personal life being the subject of embarrassing attacks in the 90’s (and today); eight years as a senator; four years as the Secretary of State; two presidential elections; leaked emails; leaked speech transcripts; an FBI investigation that lasted over a year; and more scrutiny than any human being has probably ever endured — we know more about her than any other presidential candidate in United States history.
Yet most of the main attacks people use on her are the myths and lies I just listed in this article.
This is a person who’s had people digging into every inch of her life (both public and private) for more than half of her adult life, yet despite all of that, most of the attacks levied against her are either flat-out not true, hypocritical because if the same thing was linked to a politician they supported they wouldn’t care less about it, or largely taken out of context.
And if that’s the best most of her critics have to use against her, all that really does is prove that she’s not nearly as bad as they think she is.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Trump Calls Sgt. Johnson’s Widow a Liar Within Minutes of Her Confirming He Disrespected Her Husband (Video) - October 23, 2017
- John Kelly Has Disgraced Himself, this Country and Our Military - October 21, 2017
- New Disgusting Report Exposes Fox News as the ‘Harvey Weinstein’ of Cable News - October 21, 2017