Wednesday, October 12, 2016
In the song "We Know" Hamilton is accused of using government funds for his own purposes. In response he admits that he did do something wrong, but not what his rivals accuse him of. He even goes as far as to publicly apologies for it in the Reynold's Pamphlet. This essentially ruins his chances of becoming president, but saves his financial system and to some extent his political career. In todays election Hillary Clinton faces a similar situation, but hers is much more public and what she is accused of is more grievous then what Hamilton was accused of. She is accused of emailing classified information through her personal email which is not as secure as her government one. However unlike Hamilton, Clinton denies all of this even when we have information that proves her wrong. One has to wonder why she won't confess to her crime since the truth about it is known? You also have to draw a parallel between the two crimes they commit for Hamilton it is his affair with Mrs. Reynolds which ended up being the first documented sex scandal in the U.S. As for Clinton this is probably not the first time classified information has been leaked through emails by a government official, but it is probably the first time that a presidential candidate has been shown to have done it and then have it made public knowledge. This is where I wanna ask a question despite the backlash he got from it Hamilton's confession helped him more then if he denied it and let his political opponents use it against him, do you think it would help Clinton if she did the same or would it not make a difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think it would make a difference because politics has always been about knowing your opponenet and digging up dirt on them. So even if Clinton reveals her emails they'll just continue to use them against her with the information that she reveals. I feel that in politics no one is safe from public scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we'll ever know what would happen if she admitted fault. It's sad to see that both presidential candidates are dripping with scandal like a melting ice cream cone. It's even more sad that the law has had no consequences regarding Trump's proven tax evasion and misuse of charitable donations or Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Maybe Hamilton is proof that people who come from nothing face more consequences than people who come from wealth.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we'll ever know what would happen if she admitted fault. It's sad to see that both presidential candidates are dripping with scandal like a melting ice cream cone. It's even more sad that the law has had no consequences regarding Trump's proven tax evasion and misuse of charitable donations or Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Maybe Hamilton is proof that people who come from nothing face more consequences than people who come from wealth.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Devon's comment above. It is true that people who come from nothing face more consequences than people who come from wealth. Reasons why they face less consequences could be for many reasons. They might just use their wealth to pay their way out of it like a lot of politicians do. There is also the reason that they have experience being in the spotlight and know how to handle certain situations. Hamilton did not know how to handle so he ended up just being honest and going public with what he had done.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with yours and Devon's comments. I truly think that those who come from wealth cause a lot more problems then those who don't since they feel like their wealth gives them power to do what they want. There is also the truth about how Clinton will probably never confess to her wrong doing and if she does after this election it really isn't going to matter.
Delete