I love the rationalizations from the Trump crowd. One good turn deserves another, right?
It doesn’t matter what my guy did, so long as the clinton’s have done the same thing. Never mind the fact that they’re both wrong.
So does the fact that they are both wrong entail that we ought to entirely ignore their failings and vote for one over the other irrespective of which has demonstrated greater moral failings?
Do keep in mind that one or the other will be elected president and discerning their true moral characters is a crucial aspect of deciding which is more likely to be a better president or – to put it in more correct terms – which is less likely to do irreparable damage to the country.
When the moral characters of both candidates are placed side by side, there is no contest. What you call the “rationalizations” of the Trump crowd amount to a refusal to set proportionality aside.
What the Clintons did and do with regard to Haiti, Benghazi, Middle East policy, selling American policy to the highest bidder, cronyism and “fixing” the system are in no way proportional to what Trump has done. You have to be legally, politically and morally blind to not see that.
Let’s just take one issue raised by Hillary herself: Trump’s apparent support for the Iraq War. She wants to make an issue of it. The truth is that Trump, before the war started made an off-the-cuff statement of support on the Howard Stern Show, but added at that time a proviso that this was a tentative position he was expressing. A while later, still before the war started, he came out firmly against it. Now Hilary wants to hold his initial views against him even though he expressed opposition even before the war started. That is disingenuous.
Contrast that to Clinton who, as a senator from New York with real political power, voted for the war when as a politician her voiced approval actually made a political difference. Yet, she wants everyone to ignore the fact that her views – when it really mattered – made a material difference to going to war, when Trump’s views, as a private citizen, made no discernible difference and, in fact, changed to opposition before the critical decision was made by senators (like Clinton,) congress, and the president.
Her views mattered and they were expressly FOR the war AND contributed to going to war. Trump’s view didn’t have any political force and yet she wants to hold his feet to the fire on this? That is truly ridiculous and the fact that Clinton fans cannot admit this demonstrates a great deal about who is actually doing the “rationalizing.”
This depiction on Trump’s view regarding the Iraq War is not a “rationalization.” It is the correct view on the matter.
The same can be done for almost every issue where Trump and Clinton are concerned. No “rationalization” is required, just an honest appraisal of the truth.
