If my argument is a slippery slope, your argument is an Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


>>>Tracy said that, not me.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, so what was your offering? Something about data? Where is your data to support your assertion that Bush is richer than Clinton?
>
>We'll get to that. I am just trying to get you to support your assertions one by one. From where I stand, the Hillary scandal is unsupported. Agreed?

Hmmm, I think you don't understand the definition of scandal. From www.merriam-webster.com:

" loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety "

Would you agree that the fact that CNN carried the story damaged her reputation? Or, do you think it enhanced her reputation? I think you are confusing her reputation with a conviction. There's no way to convict anyone based on the limited information available, and the fact that the people in the know, "ain't talking." Does the fact that she was able to turn $1k into $100K, with help from the Tyson guy, not make you think something was amiss? If not, then you are simply a clinton apologist, and as such, you cannot be objective. It stinks, and anyone with an objective opinion has to hold their nose when observing. Worsening the problem is the litany of other "scandals" the Clintons have been involved in. Scandal is the watchword for the Clinton presidency. It was fraught with them.

There, I believe I have supported my assertion. Your turn to support yours.