3 ms·

People who bitch about a double standard are childish. Yes, the people at the top make the rules (or change them to suit them). Does that surprise you?

burkaman 11y ago
It doesn't have to be surprising to be wrong. Obviously the people at the top make the rules, that's true by definition. But we don't live in a dictatorship, and we can complain when we don't like the rules they make. That's not childish, it's human, it's the basis of our society.
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  I just find it absolutely silly that people expect a lowly grunt to follow the same rules and have the same punishment as literally the head of the institution that made the rules. It just seems plainly absurd. If the state dept makes rules about private servers, the head of the state dept can break those rules. That's just common sense. It's like workers complaining that the owner of a company breaks the rules he sets out for employees.
  - burkaman 11y ago
    "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." That argument doesn't always work out. Is it silly when people complain that the NSA is breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow? Yes, it is sort of like workers complaining that the CEO doesn't follow his own rules. That's a valid complaint. But it's not exactly like that, because Clinton wasn't just breaking some internal State Department rule. It's a rule for the whole government, which she is not the head of. And it's not just a lowly grunt that would be punished for this, it's anyone else. A general would not get away with it.
    - hackinthebochs 11y ago
      >Is it silly when people complain that the NSA is breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow? Yes, I do think it is silly. Now that doesn't mean that the NSA should have no rules and have free reign, but to draw an equivalence between the NSA and an average person (that would justify them being bound by the same rules) is just absurd. >because Clinton wasn't just breaking some internal State Department rule. The issue regarding the rules isn't about classified information, its about private servers. That is a rule that she is absolutely justified in re-writing on-the-fly even if a lowly grunt would be thrown in a hole for doing the same thing. Just to be clear, her private server does not inherently endanger classified information. People have been conflating these two issues to the point where no one can speak clearly about it. That classified information was incorrectly sent to her private email is an entirely different issue.

burkaman 11y ago

It doesn't have to be surprising to be wrong. Obviously the people at the top make the rules, that's true by definition. But we don't live in a dictatorship, and we can complain when we don't like the rules they make. That's not childish, it's human, it's the basis of our society.

hackinthebochs 11y ago
I just find it absolutely silly that people expect a lowly grunt to follow the same rules and have the same punishment as literally the head of the institution that made the rules. It just seems plainly absurd. If the state dept makes rules about private servers, the head of the state dept can break those rules. That's just common sense. It's like workers complaining that the owner of a company breaks the rules he sets out for employees.
- burkaman 11y ago
  "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." That argument doesn't always work out. Is it silly when people complain that the NSA is breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow? Yes, it is sort of like workers complaining that the CEO doesn't follow his own rules. That's a valid complaint. But it's not exactly like that, because Clinton wasn't just breaking some internal State Department rule. It's a rule for the whole government, which she is not the head of. And it's not just a lowly grunt that would be punished for this, it's anyone else. A general would not get away with it.
  - hackinthebochs 11y ago
    >Is it silly when people complain that the NSA is breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow? Yes, I do think it is silly. Now that doesn't mean that the NSA should have no rules and have free reign, but to draw an equivalence between the NSA and an average person (that would justify them being bound by the same rules) is just absurd. >because Clinton wasn't just breaking some internal State Department rule. The issue regarding the rules isn't about classified information, its about private servers. That is a rule that she is absolutely justified in re-writing on-the-fly even if a lowly grunt would be thrown in a hole for doing the same thing. Just to be clear, her private server does not inherently endanger classified information. People have been conflating these two issues to the point where no one can speak clearly about it. That classified information was incorrectly sent to her private email is an entirely different issue.