3 ms·

> I don't recall Clinton ever saying she wanted to jail her political opponent. This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because s

> I don't recall Clinton ever saying she wanted to jail her political opponent. This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent, this is a big problem, but if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes, that's perfectly fine.

zimpenfish 9y ago
> if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes Except, as many, many investigations have proven over many, many years, she hasn't. Hence it largely being a dogwhistle for... > [wanting] to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I dislike Democrats and Republicans alike. There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents. If I did that, they'd lock me up and throw away the key. It flabergasts me that otherwise reasonable people can say what you're saying. Is it confirmation bias? Is it a media that while rarely outright lying, just avoids mentioning anti-Clinton facts? How?
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents. In the same way that many people did before her and in the same way that people continue to do now. Are you proposing to prosecute everyone the same way? Why is it suddenly an issue when HRC is doing it but not when Gowdy and Chaffetz do it? Or when almost the entire Trump administration is doing it? Or when the Bush administration "lost" 50M emails they were supposed to have kept? Hint: If you only have a problem with it when HRC does it, you probably want to check your sexism and misogyny settings.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      I don't want to see everyone prosecuted, just the people who break the law. Why does Hillary get better treatment than Bryan H. Nishimura? I'm unfamiliar with your accusations against Gowdy and Chaffetz, but if they did something similar, I'd support their prosecution, too. I had to remind myself of Bush's email scandal. It looks like, in the end, since the emails were found, there was no law broken? I'm unclear on this point. But the point is, that if they broke the law, somebody should have been prosecuted, then, too. Your arguments seem to be going in the direction of "the other side is doing it, too." That's not a defense! It especially doesn't do anything to convince me, since I'm not on anybody's side. And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about. Do you really think you can retreat to accusations of misogyny every time somebody says something negative about a woman you support?
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > Why does Hillary get better treatment than Bryan H. Nishimura? The cases aren't comparable. One was a wilful mishandling of classified documents; the other was a widely accepted way of dealing with email. > since the emails were found, there was no law broken? A Senate committee said "[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened." That sounds like they broke the law. > "the other side is doing it, too." Not really - it's more that "Oh, look, the female candidate is getting slammed for things that everyone in USGOV has done, is doing, and will do whilst the male candidates and aides ... do not." > And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about. Then presumably you are now calling for Kushner's indictment?
s73ver_ 9y ago
When numerous investigations turned up jack squat regarding her doing anything wrong, calling for her to be jailed IS calling to jail her simply because she's your political opponent.

zimpenfish 9y ago

> if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes Except, as many, many investigations have proven over many, many years, she hasn't. Hence it largely being a dogwhistle for... > [wanting] to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent

Simon_says 9y ago
I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I dislike Democrats and Republicans alike. There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents. If I did that, they'd lock me up and throw away the key. It flabergasts me that otherwise reasonable people can say what you're saying. Is it confirmation bias? Is it a media that while rarely outright lying, just avoids mentioning anti-Clinton facts? How?
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents. In the same way that many people did before her and in the same way that people continue to do now. Are you proposing to prosecute everyone the same way? Why is it suddenly an issue when HRC is doing it but not when Gowdy and Chaffetz do it? Or when almost the entire Trump administration is doing it? Or when the Bush administration "lost" 50M emails they were supposed to have kept? Hint: If you only have a problem with it when HRC does it, you probably want to check your sexism and misogyny settings.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    I don't want to see everyone prosecuted, just the people who break the law. Why does Hillary get better treatment than Bryan H. Nishimura? I'm unfamiliar with your accusations against Gowdy and Chaffetz, but if they did something similar, I'd support their prosecution, too. I had to remind myself of Bush's email scandal. It looks like, in the end, since the emails were found, there was no law broken? I'm unclear on this point. But the point is, that if they broke the law, somebody should have been prosecuted, then, too. Your arguments seem to be going in the direction of "the other side is doing it, too." That's not a defense! It especially doesn't do anything to convince me, since I'm not on anybody's side. And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about. Do you really think you can retreat to accusations of misogyny every time somebody says something negative about a woman you support?
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Why does Hillary get better treatment than Bryan H. Nishimura? The cases aren't comparable. One was a wilful mishandling of classified documents; the other was a widely accepted way of dealing with email. > since the emails were found, there was no law broken? A Senate committee said "[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened." That sounds like they broke the law. > "the other side is doing it, too." Not really - it's more that "Oh, look, the female candidate is getting slammed for things that everyone in USGOV has done, is doing, and will do whilst the male candidates and aides ... do not." > And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about. Then presumably you are now calling for Kushner's indictment?

s73ver_ 9y ago

When numerous investigations turned up jack squat regarding her doing anything wrong, calling for her to be jailed IS calling to jail her simply because she's your political opponent.