Duh? That seems obvious to me. The Constitution states that in order to be eligible to be president you need to meet four criteria: 1) Be a US citizen of 2) age 35 or greater, have 3) lived in the US for the past 14 years, and 4) not already served two terms as president. By definition if the majority of voters elect her, that's the majority of US voters stating they believe the benefits she brings to the oval office outweigh whatever negative marks she has on her record. Welcome to democracy. So then why the double standard? Why is it ok that Bush's administration lied about WMDs so he could start a war with Iraq and finish up Daddy's business? Why aren't there calls for a congressional investigation into that? Because it's all partisan politics, that's why. People of full of shit. The reality is that 10% of people think Clinton's emails are the line of demarcation between her being electable or not, while the remaining 90% simply don't like her [for whatever reasons - stances, competence, sexism, etc.] and use this as justification to themselves as to why she shouldn't run. Like Clutch just said, "lot of the anger is actually about how normally when something like this happens, we expect the person to at least step down in disgrace" the subtext being, "as long as she isn't running for POTUS anymore, that's all that matters." From the perspective of ethics, I see this shit all the time: People want deontological principles to apply without exception to everyone else, but want to reserve the right to adopt consequentialist views in their own lives/organizations. I'm just calling it like I see it.
And here's the reality of your hypothetical: If you're a high-performer who brings a lot of value to the organization, you're not gonna get fired. If you're a low-performer whom was already looked upon as a weak link, it's probably your ass. Not saying it's right, but that's how the world works and we as human beings generally accept things that way.
Except sometimes it doesn't work that way. Sometimes you lose your distinguished military career over classified info while others skate. Sometimes people are born on third and everyone says they hit a triple.
I think people are pissed for two main reasons, one it's Hillary Clinton, people fucking have hated her with a passion since the 90's (call is sexism or politics or what ever), two, the palpaple distrust people have of the government in general this election cycle. Both Trump and Sanders have ran on being outsiders hoping to disrupt the elites only power system. Clinton getting passed over is just another example of the shitty system only working for the elites and powerbrokers. With hilariously bad ethical quandries icing the cake. You better believe Sanders would have played this to no end if it had happened 4-5 months ago. Donald Trump being so disliked is another saving grace for Clinton in my mind. If some middle of the roader had won the republican nomination, they'd have had a legitimate shot with poor democrat turn out alone. Trump is so decisive he'll keep the opposition fired up with every tweet ten times more than anything Hillary Clinton could have done.
I wonder if he laid out those many things she did wrong as a blatant attempt at showing that strings were being pulled... "She did this and this and this and this and this wrong, but we're not going to charge her." Kind of a "you guys do the math" statement while towing the company line.
It will be interesting to see what she says next. Or act as if the whole thing didn't even happen. Or act like she has been completely exonerated. Because while they aren't going to indict her, he definitely didn't say anything about her not doing anything wrong at all. The press conference from Comey was pretty damning to me.
I'm also wondering if there's not something related to the Clinton Foundation that is coming that isn't related to the email issues. At least I'm really hoping there is.
I'm really confused about how he can sit and explain all the ways she broke the law, and then say "but the whole indictment thing? We'd rather not..." without any kind of ace in the hole. That press conference HAD to be strategic somehow. God I hope it was strategic.
I really wonder if there's something to the very specific way that he said that there'd be no indictment for the email server or improper handling of classified information. That seems strangely specific to me. It's also why I wonder about anything coming from the Clinton Foundation information, as it would not be included in that statement.
Theyll weather this no problem. That assesment before made sense. If they blew some low grade charge indicting her in an election year? The whole agency would have been fucked for a generation. If there was collusion it would never see the light of day anyway. Now they can shake their heads and wait for the Olympics to take everyone's minds off this in a few weeks. The Foundation stuff is fantasy at this point.
So to be clear, you're agreeing she broke the law but justify it by pointing to Bush? And who is saying that's even remotely okay if that's the truth? The caveat is you need to prove he and his administration lied instead of just being incompetent. Prove the malicious intent. Even with his incompetence, what law was broken there? Clinton's incompetence directly contributed to breaking the law, one that anyone else would have been drawn and quartered for.
I don't know if she broke the law or not, but I've already made my feelings clear on the whole situation previously.
I've been reading a lot of news stories about this (not just on fox) and in just about every comment section there is nothing but disgust toward Hilary and the administration with very little to no defense of her. Obviously I've only glimpsed a tiny fraction of the stories and comments, but it's very unusual not having some troll somewhere defending her. I'm not seeing much of it at all. If Trump can get just a little bit real and focus on keeping this in the public's attention without doing it like an asshole (wishful thinking, I know), I don't see how she wins. The disgust over this seems pretty universal. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...omey-about-hillarys-emails.html?intcmp=hphz03
"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" This just shows you, out front and in the open, what you already have known all along: there is justice and there is "just us." After all of this is said and done, I really don't understand how people will continue to not only support her but support this system. Everyone complains that this system is broken, that this system is unfair, unjust; yet you won't do anything to change it. 90%+ of the voting population will vote for one of two people who will continue to help perpetuate this system, then they will complain about it, then they will repeat the same steps over again. What's everyone's opinion? What will it take to fix this because we continue to do the same things and get the same results. I'm as guilty as everyone else on this but does it really take people starving and dying to get off the couch and go fix things? In happier news, football is only weeks away.....
I love this Hillary Clinton email bit. I can't say I'm fond of an elite shadow world where strings are pulled and people are protected. However, it is good to see that at least the elite are thinking, "Oh fuck, she's fucking terrible and stupid, but we can't indict her because if we do, Trump might win." That's glorious. Can't we all admit that Hillary is far better than Trump even if we think she is vile and criminally incompetent? I mean that's clear cut to anyone with half a head this election right? Maybe I'm too far up my own ass at this point, but this election is laughable mostly because the Republican Party is ludicrous.
I've been saying for months that we should just cancel the 2016 presidential election. Obama steps down, as he is constitutionally limited to two terms, Biden takes office and vows not to seek reelection, congress holds a tight leash on Old Joe to make sure he just stays the course for four years, and then we reconvene in 2020 when we're all hopefully sobered and humbled by this clusterfuck of an election we have brought upon ourselves.
I think that the majority of the people that comment here that will vote Democrat voted for Hillary in the primary, and the majority of people that comment here that will vote Republican did NOT vote for Trump in the primary. So, there's two different things to "fix."
I have a question about this Anton Sterling thing: while it's never desirable or good for police to shoot anyone, the accounts of the incident and the video seem to show a guy struggling and fighting off two cops, him getting shot and the police removing a gun from his clothing after he was shot and incapacitated (or dead, whichever). There's quite a bit of uproar and everyone's losing their minds that another black man was shot. But if a white dude had the cops called on him because he allegedly had a gun proceeded to wrestle and fight two police officers and then get shot, and then have a gun in fact removed from his body...isn't that legitimate, to a degree? Like if the police showed up and demanded I get on my knees and hold still so they could arrest me, isn't the proper course of action to get on your knees and talk to them after the situation is secured? I just can't envision a scenario where I would feel it appropriate to wrestle an on-duty police officer in an attempt to evade arrest. Maybe I'm missing something. The titles of the articles all say "Unarmed Man," but it sounds like witnesses did see a gun removed from the body. EDIT: I have to agree with Rener and Ryron Gracie here. Google their fight breakdowns if you want really interesting technical knowledge of both jiu jitsu and police fighting tactics. One of their primary businesses is training law enforcement, and they maintain that the most dangerous officers are the untrained ones. Departments should invest heavily on training their officers in hand-to-hand combat as well as multiple officer restraint. If those officers had been trained well enough to submit a struggling man and get him cuffed, the escalation of gunshots wouldn't have happened. Police are only as good as their training.
I'm inclined to agree with you. The issue is a larger one and that issue is that the cops can do anything they want to you and the legality of it is determined in court way after the fact. Generally cops word vs dead/injured person's word and the cops word is given more weight. Basically, at the end of the day, if you don't show complete surrender, they aren't backing down until you do.