3 ms·

"Funding Trump, especially at this scale, represents general support of what Trump has said and done." - That's a pretty big logical leap. Would a person who su

by calebm 10y ago

"Funding Trump, especially at this scale, represents general support of what Trump has said and done." - That's a pretty big logical leap. Would a person who supports Hillary "generally support" flippant top-secret email handling? Let's be logical: I think we can all agree that a person can support a candidate while not supporting every word they speak or action they take.

HelloNurse 10y ago
Thinking there is a lot of good in "what Trump has said and done", that his horribly racist, sexist and insane opinions and ideas are an acceptable price, and that Clinton would be a worse president is a legitimate opinion, but comparing Clinton's reckless behaviour to Trump's reckless statements is not. Forgiving past errors isn't the same as accepting future policies. Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mistake, it doesn't represent a political program or opinion or stance, except for the generic disregard for the law that is implied by breaking it.
- nathanaldensr 10y ago
  Did you really just write "Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mistake?" My lying eyes must be deceiving me! Not only did you just write that illegal acts are "mistakes," but you also placed political opinions over the legality of actions. You effectively declared that political rhetoric is worse than actual illegal activity. Go commit a crime 1/100th of the scale of HRC's and see if the uncaring justice system allows you to get away with it as a "mistake."
  - HelloNurse 10y ago
    Pragmatically, political "rhetoric" is more important than crimes. For example, which candidate is more likely to maintain a good relationship between USA and Mexico? Not the one who wants Mexico to pay for a great wall. It doesn't depend on how illegally and immorally they behaved in the past.

3 ms·

"Funding Trump, especially at this scale, represents general support of what Trump has said and done." - That's a pretty big logical leap. Would a person who su

by calebm 10y ago

HelloNurse 10y ago
Thinking there is a lot of good in "what Trump has said and done", that his horribly racist, sexist and insane opinions and ideas are an acceptable price, and that Clinton would be a worse president is a legitimate opinion, but comparing Clinton's reckless behaviour to Trump's reckless statements is not. Forgiving past errors isn't the same as accepting future policies. Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mistake, it doesn't represent a political program or opinion or stance, except for the generic disregard for the law that is implied by breaking it.
- nathanaldensr 10y ago
  Did you really just write "Imprudent and illegal use of email is only a mistake?" My lying eyes must be deceiving me! Not only did you just write that illegal acts are "mistakes," but you also placed political opinions over the legality of actions. You effectively declared that political rhetoric is worse than actual illegal activity. Go commit a crime 1/100th of the scale of HRC's and see if the uncaring justice system allows you to get away with it as a "mistake."
  - HelloNurse 10y ago
    Pragmatically, political "rhetoric" is more important than crimes. For example, which candidate is more likely to maintain a good relationship between USA and Mexico? Not the one who wants Mexico to pay for a great wall. It doesn't depend on how illegally and immorally they behaved in the past.