What are Democrats really selling if we choose to be in it "together" with Hillary Clinton? As an experienced public employee, Hillary Clinton has a long history of scandal and dishonesty that goes to the very root of the dishonesty of what she's selling now.
After all, it would be, eh-hem, "nuts," for a person to argue that they're pro rights for those with mental illness yet also argue that mental health "reform" includes breaching doctor-patient confidentiality so that formerly confidential interactions with mental health professionals would be provided to the Federal government with immunity for purposes of denying gun licenses as Clinton proposes (with her deep background checks and centralization of psychiatric information).
It doesn't take rocket science that the use of such an appalling breach of confidentiality would further discourage the already CDC-identified problem of stigma that discourages those with issues from seeking help. Further, you can't really argue that you're pro rights for those with mental illness while repeatedly using terms like "crazy" and unfit without raising the eyebrows of sensible people.
You can't sell that you understand the challenges of America's unemployed youth and refer to them living in basements as a "mindset" problem, as if explaining how there's really no problem, it's just their "mindset," that is flawed and that TPP is the gold standard. Sensible people wouldn't buy that, would they?
You can't sell sympathy for women and refer to women ensnared with a powerful figure sexually as an "eruption of bimbos." You can't argue about children's rights and assert that a 12-year-old rape victim needs "psychiatric help."
You can't argue that someone who lawfully uses the tax code to maximize tax benefits is less desirable to someone who manipulates public office and access to get rich off failed banks. Can you? Maybe you can.
Hillary Clinton's in it together farce goes a lot further than merely lying about TPP as the 'gold standard,' which even the Democrat supportive Politifact couldn't call more than "half-true," http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/.
In her successful assertions persuading some that Donald Trump is "Unfit," she shows a non-repentant record of successful maneuverings to avoid responsibility and bury her challengers by calling them "crazy," or "unfit."
So let's talk "fitness," with the armchair psychology and dishonest fact-picking that Democrats are using:
With the "revelation" that Donald Trump's accountants used the tax law to minimize their client's (Mr. Trump's) tax liability, the Democrats are eagerly trying to frame it as a "scandal." It may be distasteful, but using the existing tax code to minimize tax liability? Every TurboTax using individual in the US does the same. Sure, our numbers don't near the numbers Mr. Trump's accountants manage, but let's be honest, neither do Hillary Clinton's and likely she's not preparing her own taxes either. So, what does that mean for "fitness"?
But let's consider the Democratic claim: Fitness means that a private citizen whose accountant maximizes the benefits available under our current tax code for their clients is UNFIT for the presidency? Even Democrats can see it's illogical when you're "selling" Hillary Clinton.
The Clinton's Whitewater scandal, which began with a failed REAL ESTATE deal from which she and her husband emerged with lots of money though others were devastated and which actually resulted in criminal charges against the Clintons, seems relevant here (learn a little at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy).
A big deal was made about Trump's comments to a former Miss Universe about her weight gain. Though there's all sorts of hostility to fat-shaming, how is expecting beauty queens to toe a specific appearance line any more mercenary than expecting boxers, wrestler or any other athlete to maintain weight requirements? It's an essential aspect of the job. After all, it is a "BEAUTY" contest. So what does that mean for fitness?
But let's consider the Democratic assertion: Fitness means that a private citizen running a beauty contest cannot critique the WEIGHT of contestants because it amounts to name-calling? Even Democrats can see it's illogical. And name-calling, labeling isn't "presidential"? That's pretty funny coming from Hillary Clinton.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton, she said "half of Trump supporters could be put into a 'Basket of Deplorables,'" which got a rousing round of laughter from her wealthy LGBT for Hillary audience BEFORE she even explained what her contemptuous made-up term meant, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUT_tujluSg
Regarding Millenials, Clinton asserted, "They are living in their parents' basement…Mindset affecting their politics." Is it a MINDSET that you're living in your parents' basement and can't get a decent job or is it REALITY? Clinton can't tell the difference as she addresses how to get those voters: "Take what we can achieve and present them as bigger goals," http://www.newsweek.com/clinton-didn"t-insult-sanders-supporters-basement-dwellers-505124. Even a Democrat can get that message, trick them, much like Obamacare tricked all of us by presenting what Clinton's really planning as "A BIGGER GOAL."
Regarding Monica Lewinsky when Diane Sawyer asked Hillary Clinton: Did you call her a narcissistic loony-tune, Hillary responded, I'm not going to respond on what I did or did not say, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ2DW4seyUs.
In 1994, lobbying for Bill Clinton's crime bill, Hillary Clinton described "super predators," those with "no conscience, no empathy…We have to bring them to heel," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4nmRZx9nc.
In 1996, THE NEW YORK TIMES columnist William Safire wrote of Hillary Clinton in his Essay; Blizzard of Lies," that Hillary Clinton, "…is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit," http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html.
In 1996, for 20/20 Barbara Walters, interviewed Hillary Clinton about accusations she is a "congenital liar," asking her about her claim she had nothing to do with Travel Office firings when a memo surfaced indicating she had orchestrated the firings, "That's something I'll have to let someone else explain."
In the same video raised the issue of, "Madison Guaranty, a failed savings and loan that financed shady real estate deals. The bank's failure cost taxpayers $60 million. Hillary Clinton was what her law firm called the 'billing officer' for the Madison account," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ScDPH9oIXg.
Walters: "Were you aware of any shady practices or wrongdoing?" Clinton: "Absolutely not." Clinton's honest-by-a-technicality argument, so familiar to us by now was also used in her discussion of Castle Grande.
As for Donald Trump's alleged making fun of people with physical challenges? Disgusting if true, much like Hillary Clinton's use of the word "crazy," or "loony tune" and her disparaging 1992 assertions that complaints from women with whom Bill Clinton had sexual relations was all of a meaningless series of "bimbo eruptions."
In terms of her defense of "children," in 1975, defending a rapist (search Tom Taylor, Judge Maupin Cummings), Hillary Clinton went to her go-to "crazy" assertion and asserted that the 12-year old victim needed psychiatric evaluation, "Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. 'I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,'" http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/.
If "the past" is dictating "the present," and if changing views don't express progressive maturity, experience and wisdom instead of "flip-flopping," then we should be terrified that Hillary Clinton has been doing the same thing for 40 years and intends to bring that experience to her performance as President.
