3 ms·

On the football game analogy: yes, there are two teams. One of these teams will win. Both teams suck but at the end of the day, most people will want to vote fo

by ben174 10y ago

On the football game analogy: yes, there are two teams. One of these teams will win. Both teams suck but at the end of the day, most people will want to vote for the person who made the most points. It's actually exactly what it is.

umanwizard 10y ago
I am not discussing who you should vote for. I am discussing whether Hillary Clinton is a corrupt person. Those are two different questions. If Trump[1] is even worse, then sure, vote for Hillary. But that doesn't mean that she's good or that people have to like her. As an aside: if that were the argument Hillary fans had been making the whole time: "Yeah, we know Hillary is bad and corrupt, but at least she's way better than Trump, so you should vote for her", then I would respect them a lot more. Instead, it's mostly been a chorus of "OMG, why are you dragging up conspiracy theories about her e-mails! You right-wing simpleton! Go back to Breitbart and argue about lizard people!" Nothing is more annoying than people being smug when they're actually wrong. [1]: Trump is Hillary's competition, in case anyone didn't know. Not sure why anyone is still talking about Bush.
- psyklic 10y ago
  This reads very presumptuously. The FBI stated she was reckless yet did nothing illegal. Reckless neither implies bad nor corrupt.
  - metiscus 10y ago
    Here is the thing. When you are cleared onto a classified project or given access to classified data, you sign several documents in which you accept responsibility for safeguarding our national security by protecting that information. If an employee of Lockheed Martin engaged in similar behavior, e.g. making references to SCI information outside of a SCIF, with only properly cleared personnel they could go to prison. Regardless of the markings she caused SCI information to be transmitted in the clear which shows a certain level of disregard for the policies that are in place to protect us and it would appear that she did so for her own convenience (if you assume the most pure motives). The reader will have to decide if this behavior, while adjudicated as reckless but not criminal is a simple instance of poor judgement by her handlers or indicative of deeper issues with the candidate.
jessaustin 10y ago
...most people will want to vote for the person who made the most points. This is true, and baffling. I try to vote as if the process matters, although I'll be the first to admit it's largely a waste of my time. Meanwhile, the morons who loudly declaim the fundamental importance of voting, care only about being "right". SMH.
the_trapper 10y ago
Fun fact, Gary Johnson will be on every state's ballot this year. Therefore, no there are NOT just two teams. Voting for the lesser evil is so much of what is wrong with the direction of this country today.

by ben174 10y ago

umanwizard 10y ago

I am not discussing who you should vote for. I am discussing whether Hillary Clinton is a corrupt person. Those are two different questions. If Trump[1] is even worse, then sure, vote for Hillary. But that doesn't mean that she's good or that people have to like her. As an aside: if that were the argument Hillary fans had been making the whole time: "Yeah, we know Hillary is bad and corrupt, but at least she's way better than Trump, so you should vote for her", then I would respect them a lot more. Instead, it's mostly been a chorus of "OMG, why are you dragging up conspiracy theories about her e-mails! You right-wing simpleton! Go back to Breitbart and argue about lizard people!" Nothing is more annoying than people being smug when they're actually wrong. [1]: Trump is Hillary's competition, in case anyone didn't know. Not sure why anyone is still talking about Bush.

psyklic 10y ago
This reads very presumptuously. The FBI stated she was reckless yet did nothing illegal. Reckless neither implies bad nor corrupt.
- metiscus 10y ago
  Here is the thing. When you are cleared onto a classified project or given access to classified data, you sign several documents in which you accept responsibility for safeguarding our national security by protecting that information. If an employee of Lockheed Martin engaged in similar behavior, e.g. making references to SCI information outside of a SCIF, with only properly cleared personnel they could go to prison. Regardless of the markings she caused SCI information to be transmitted in the clear which shows a certain level of disregard for the policies that are in place to protect us and it would appear that she did so for her own convenience (if you assume the most pure motives). The reader will have to decide if this behavior, while adjudicated as reckless but not criminal is a simple instance of poor judgement by her handlers or indicative of deeper issues with the candidate.

jessaustin 10y ago

...most people will want to vote for the person who made the most points. This is true, and baffling. I try to vote as if the process matters, although I'll be the first to admit it's largely a waste of my time. Meanwhile, the morons who loudly declaim the fundamental importance of voting, care only about being "right". SMH.

the_trapper 10y ago

Fun fact, Gary Johnson will be on every state's ballot this year. Therefore, no there are NOT just two teams. Voting for the lesser evil is so much of what is wrong with the direction of this country today.