9 ms·

Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self-interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and outri

Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self-interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and outright illegal things throughout her career. No big surprise here. If elected, she will continue to work the highly imperfect system we've got in lots of shady and questionable ways. But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society. Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here and the fairy tale than ANY sufficiently powerful person will be held accountable for their misdeeds. I've never been one to buy the two-party lesser of evils narrative, but we are really and truly at the edge of the cliff right now. Do we let righteous indignation push us over the edge? Or do we live to fight another day?

deelowe 10y ago
Would be nice if she were prosecuted so that we can move on with a better candidate.
- danenania 10y ago
  A week before the election? No. Taking Clinton down, as much as she may deserve it, means the country takes a huge leap toward fascism. It's simple as that.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I find it interesting that you think prosecuting someone for committing a crime would result in fascism, so your solution is to absolve her of the crimes she committed.
    - abootstrapper 10y ago
      As far as we can tell, she has not committed any crimes. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
      - tylerwhipple 10y ago
        Just like Trump with the alleged sexual assaults right? No one brings those up....
        languagewars 10y ago
        He raped his ex wife then did whatever else and ran a bunch of scams. She gave out what she believed to be classified data in a system she clearly understands. Yet even if neither understands their crimes are crimes they are responsible for them under US law. If you want to fix US law and/or the election system then arrest them both. Then something has to be fixed or the system has to run with no inaugurated president. The system functioning with no president is an even better reform in my book.
dman 10y ago
If we let people get away with illegal activity because it is politically convenient we will not have rule of law anymore.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
This type of comment tends to get down voted on HN, as is already happening. FWIW I agree with you, but the dispassionate rationalists among us will argue that equally applying the rule of law is more important that preventing a potentially dangerous demagogue from taking power. Of course, theres no way that the a trial could occur, let alone an investigation be completed, before the election at this point, so that argument doesn't really apply IMO. If HRC loses because of this, it will simply have been a trial by public opinion, not the rule of law. Others could also argue that, despite his statements that have shown utter contempt for and ignorance of American law, history and political norms, he doesn't actually have a track record in one direction or another and is just saying those things to elicit support from his base. We can only hope...
return0 10y ago
I wonder to what percentage US people feel they are threatened by a crazy president. I am under the impression that US has the most impressive checks and balances and nobody is above the laws&constitution (and this act by the FBI seems to prove it).
swissoak 10y ago
>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... "That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win." And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?
- pfraze 10y ago
  Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it. > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.
  - luxuryballs 10y ago
    He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.
vectorpush 10y ago
I agree with you, but I think she needs to be indicted if the e-mails prove her to be culpable. Ideally she will win the election, and if the e-mails prove damning she will be indicted and hopefully impeached and forced to resign, leaving Tim Kaine to finish off her term, which IMO would be the best case scenario for the country.
- williadc 10y ago
  Impeachment doesn't mean she will be forced to resign. Look at what happened with Bill Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    I understand that, that's why I said "impeached AND forced to resign" :)
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      If the Senate convicts, the impeached individual is removed from office, they don't need to resign (and I guess won't save face by doing it once they are impeached).
- heurist 10y ago
  That's pretty presumptive. The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Given that she's been running for president the last decade or two and republicans will pounce on her over any little misstep, do you really think she'd intentionally do something that could ruin her chances of winning or staying president? Remember that intention is important in law...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Incorrect, they found no one who was "willing to prosecute"
downandout 10y ago
>Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here In one breath, you express concern about the end of democracy, and in the next you disregard one of the vanguards of American government as if it's nothing. If we are indeed "past the point of laws here," then democracy has already ended.
languagewars 10y ago
I think a bipartisan effort to arrest both of them before the election is the logical way forward. I want a system where criminals are afraid to run for office.
harshreality 10y ago
When your argument against Trump is a "FEAR UP" campaign without any substantive support or details, you've lost the argument. Trump supporters are not going to be frightened by your hyperbolic claims, and on the Hillary side you're talking into an echo chamber. It's easy to refute two gross generalizations you made: Enforcing immigration policy, even pausing immigration in certain cases, is not "closing" open society. It's recognizing that there's a dark side to allowing arbitrary numbers of immigrants and refugees bypassing the normal immigration process, and it's taking a step back and figuring out in advance, rationally, what policy we want to enforce, rather than not enforcing any meaningful policy and getting stuck with the results down the road. The free speech threat from regulating big (and maybe not-so-big) media is troublesome, I agree. However, it's accepted, even more on the far left than on the far right, that pretty much all media, advertising, and entertainment is propaganda. What happens if we continue to fail to recognize this propaganda as a threat to the kind of democracy we hopefully want—a democracy built on rational inquiry, rather than one built on the crest of emotion, on propaganda-fueled mass hysteria? You want democracy? This is what Hillary's "democracy" looks (sounds) like: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... (direct soundcloud link https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 )
freehunter 10y ago
Nothing Trump has said or done in any way improves the suitability of Clinton for president. If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee?
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee? I've wondered about this but I don't think it would happen. Every single person but 3 that I know who is voting for Hillary or Trump is doing so with the upmost conviction that the candidate completely and entirely represents their values as belonging to the respective parties. It's as if the individual parties have become a religion. And sure I know a few people who will vote for either party that represents their values and goals the most (I am one of them) but for every 1 person I know like that I know dozens of others who are as tied to their political party as their religion. Yes this is all anecdotal. I have nothing else to go on. But now that he's the nominee I think more people than we might expect are going to fully support him.
- brandon272 10y ago
  I think people severely overestimate how a Trump presidency would play out in terms of "shocking" the system. And in the meantime, a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees)
  - douche 10y ago
    > (See: Supreme Court nominees) The flip side of that is that there are pretty close to the same number of people that think a Clinton administration could do plenty of damage that would have ripple effects on society for decades to come. I'm uneasy about judicial activism, in either direction. I wish that conservatism, of the Chestertonian, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" variety, was a requirement for such an august long-tenured position.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    ...a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees) Didn't we get a list of these? In order, Trump will nominate his sister, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. He won't get more than three nominations, and Rudy can't end all civil rights for criminal defendants forever all by himself.
tomjen3 10y ago
Please a democratically elected presidential candidate from a major party getting elected cannot be a threat against democracy, it IS democracy. Democracy is not getting the leader you want, it is not getting the best leader and it isn't pretty - it is a way to guarantee legitimacy by getting the leader most people vote for, no more, no less.

deelowe 10y ago

Would be nice if she were prosecuted so that we can move on with a better candidate.

danenania 10y ago
A week before the election? No. Taking Clinton down, as much as she may deserve it, means the country takes a huge leap toward fascism. It's simple as that.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I find it interesting that you think prosecuting someone for committing a crime would result in fascism, so your solution is to absolve her of the crimes she committed.
  - abootstrapper 10y ago
    As far as we can tell, she has not committed any crimes. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
    - tylerwhipple 10y ago
      Just like Trump with the alleged sexual assaults right? No one brings those up....
      - languagewars 10y ago
        He raped his ex wife then did whatever else and ran a bunch of scams. She gave out what she believed to be classified data in a system she clearly understands. Yet even if neither understands their crimes are crimes they are responsible for them under US law. If you want to fix US law and/or the election system then arrest them both. Then something has to be fixed or the system has to run with no inaugurated president. The system functioning with no president is an even better reform in my book.

dman 10y ago

If we let people get away with illegal activity because it is politically convenient we will not have rule of law anymore.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

This type of comment tends to get down voted on HN, as is already happening. FWIW I agree with you, but the dispassionate rationalists among us will argue that equally applying the rule of law is more important that preventing a potentially dangerous demagogue from taking power. Of course, theres no way that the a trial could occur, let alone an investigation be completed, before the election at this point, so that argument doesn't really apply IMO. If HRC loses because of this, it will simply have been a trial by public opinion, not the rule of law. Others could also argue that, despite his statements that have shown utter contempt for and ignorance of American law, history and political norms, he doesn't actually have a track record in one direction or another and is just saying those things to elicit support from his base. We can only hope...

return0 10y ago

I wonder to what percentage US people feel they are threatened by a crazy president. I am under the impression that US has the most impressive checks and balances and nobody is above the laws&constitution (and this act by the FBI seems to prove it).

swissoak 10y ago

>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... "That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win." And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?

pfraze 10y ago
Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it. > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.
- luxuryballs 10y ago
  He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.

vectorpush 10y ago

I agree with you, but I think she needs to be indicted if the e-mails prove her to be culpable. Ideally she will win the election, and if the e-mails prove damning she will be indicted and hopefully impeached and forced to resign, leaving Tim Kaine to finish off her term, which IMO would be the best case scenario for the country.

williadc 10y ago
Impeachment doesn't mean she will be forced to resign. Look at what happened with Bill Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
- vectorpush 10y ago
  I understand that, that's why I said "impeached AND forced to resign" :)
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    If the Senate convicts, the impeached individual is removed from office, they don't need to resign (and I guess won't save face by doing it once they are impeached).
heurist 10y ago
That's pretty presumptive. The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Given that she's been running for president the last decade or two and republicans will pounce on her over any little misstep, do you really think she'd intentionally do something that could ruin her chances of winning or staying president? Remember that intention is important in law...
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Incorrect, they found no one who was "willing to prosecute"

downandout 10y ago

>Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here In one breath, you express concern about the end of democracy, and in the next you disregard one of the vanguards of American government as if it's nothing. If we are indeed "past the point of laws here," then democracy has already ended.

languagewars 10y ago

I think a bipartisan effort to arrest both of them before the election is the logical way forward. I want a system where criminals are afraid to run for office.

harshreality 10y ago

When your argument against Trump is a "FEAR UP" campaign without any substantive support or details, you've lost the argument. Trump supporters are not going to be frightened by your hyperbolic claims, and on the Hillary side you're talking into an echo chamber. It's easy to refute two gross generalizations you made: Enforcing immigration policy, even pausing immigration in certain cases, is not "closing" open society. It's recognizing that there's a dark side to allowing arbitrary numbers of immigrants and refugees bypassing the normal immigration process, and it's taking a step back and figuring out in advance, rationally, what policy we want to enforce, rather than not enforcing any meaningful policy and getting stuck with the results down the road. The free speech threat from regulating big (and maybe not-so-big) media is troublesome, I agree. However, it's accepted, even more on the far left than on the far right, that pretty much all media, advertising, and entertainment is propaganda. What happens if we continue to fail to recognize this propaganda as a threat to the kind of democracy we hopefully want—a democracy built on rational inquiry, rather than one built on the crest of emotion, on propaganda-fueled mass hysteria? You want democracy? This is what Hillary's "democracy" looks (sounds) like: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... (direct soundcloud link https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 )

freehunter 10y ago

Nothing Trump has said or done in any way improves the suitability of Clinton for president. If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee?

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee? I've wondered about this but I don't think it would happen. Every single person but 3 that I know who is voting for Hillary or Trump is doing so with the upmost conviction that the candidate completely and entirely represents their values as belonging to the respective parties. It's as if the individual parties have become a religion. And sure I know a few people who will vote for either party that represents their values and goals the most (I am one of them) but for every 1 person I know like that I know dozens of others who are as tied to their political party as their religion. Yes this is all anecdotal. I have nothing else to go on. But now that he's the nominee I think more people than we might expect are going to fully support him.
brandon272 10y ago
I think people severely overestimate how a Trump presidency would play out in terms of "shocking" the system. And in the meantime, a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees)
- douche 10y ago
  > (See: Supreme Court nominees) The flip side of that is that there are pretty close to the same number of people that think a Clinton administration could do plenty of damage that would have ripple effects on society for decades to come. I'm uneasy about judicial activism, in either direction. I wish that conservatism, of the Chestertonian, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" variety, was a requirement for such an august long-tenured position.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ...a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees) Didn't we get a list of these? In order, Trump will nominate his sister, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. He won't get more than three nominations, and Rudy can't end all civil rights for criminal defendants forever all by himself.

tomjen3 10y ago

Please a democratically elected presidential candidate from a major party getting elected cannot be a threat against democracy, it IS democracy. Democracy is not getting the leader you want, it is not getting the best leader and it isn't pretty - it is a way to guarantee legitimacy by getting the leader most people vote for, no more, no less.