Those personal under-the-table bribes are usually done in secret. In that context, secret usually means nobody knows what, or why. So the same way you see those deals as for the purpose of being personal, I see those deals as for the purpose of something else.
In order to claim a person has a personal agenda, you usually have to have at the very least a motive or reason. I can give many reasons why Trump’s ascension to President can help out many personal assets of his. While Hillary’s entire life revolved around U.S. politics and Government. What does Hillary have to gain that she couldn’t already do as the THIRD most powerful position in all of US Government. Being in charge of the U.S. Department of State makes her the sole person liable for ALL U.S. national foreign policy and relations. I don’t know what kind of “personal agenda” everyone so broadly describes her to have.
Well damn, I guess in that context, we ALL have personal agendas, don’t we? Trump, Putin, etc.
The world of diplomatic relations is hard to describe, it’s not about bunch of foreign prime ministers and leaders sitting in a room with a pencil and paper discussing world peace. It’s all about leverage, benefits, exchanging of information or security, etc.
|
I would like to see some examples of false evidence from WikiLeaks, because it is widely known they release factual information and none of the Hillary e-mails they leaked were false and are the exact same e-mails the FBI has.
|
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016...001176775.html
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-put...sputnik-508635
Like I said, the common masses eat up everything Wikileaks says. On that note however, I understand it’s hypocritical to rely on the News/Media as well. How about, in defense of my argument, YOU provide ME with substantial evidence that your information is FACTUAL. I probably haven't seen whatever links YOU were looking at, so I would actually be really open to reading it with an open mind.
These Wikileaks are open to the public, but yet Trump only chooses a few smaller things from that open information to blast at. What does that tell you about the rest of the information?
See the dilemma here? Neither party can prove anything. Watch the video on the last link.
|
Also, you say the bigger picture is to always serve the US and their allies, so does that make his suggestion of taking in less refugees a positive one because that's exactly what he's doing, focusing on protecting the American people.
|
No, that is NOT the bigger picture. That is in fact, the smaller picture, protection of such a small physical space. That is a temporary solution to a bigger problem.
And seriously, Hillary passing information to the wrong hand? Her husband was Bill Clinton, she served as the Secretary of State, if damage was to be done, trust me we would or “Wikileaks” would have MORE substantial information on that. If information would be in Trump's hands, you think he'll be a protector of freedom and information?
Bribes from countries comes with conditions. The fact that she has favor with nations funding ISIL means access to information. Multiple perspectives. Her connections run deep.
What does Trump have? Oh he has Vladmir Putin. The one President that has deemed the U.S. as an enemy and have been our biggest cyber threat since the
ongoing Cold War.