[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by IamMe90

Does she? i'm not saying she doesn't, i legitimately don't really know what her inner moral compass is, and i could come up with literally hundreds of narratives that would fit her actions. however, i am not a mind reader, and i am loathe to: 1) come up with these sorts of narratives in the absence of objective evidence; and 2) then pretend like the ones i did come up with are backed by any kind of objective evidence even though they are clearly not.

yes, she does. you clearly feel comfortable judging trump based on his words and actions, but you're hesitant to do the same with clinton? what of her words and actions have led you to believe that she isnt eager or at least willing to put her own ambitions above what is best for the country or the democratic party? 3-4 months passed between the beginning of the email scandal and the democratic convention. 3-4 months for her to drop out of the race, like any respectable person would have done. 3-4 months for her to at least apologize. what did she do instead? obstruct justice by deleting data from her servers, hide behind lawyers and act glib about it in the media. yes, we were asking if you wiped the server with a cloth. very funny. i am glad you are taking this seriously.

Does it? because i think that this is a statement that is not backed by any sort of objective evidence, and merely fits the preconceived narrative that you possess about her character. i also don't think that she necessarily doesn't feel that she is above the law, i don't know man, but those are some loaded statements about feelings and other intangible shit that isn't really convincingly demonstrated by the supposed evidence here

yes, it does. instead of handing over her server to the justice department, you know, obeying the law, she had it wiped. instead of providing the server as requred by subpoena, she gave the justice department a selection of emails. i guarantee you that if something of yours gets subpoenad and you decide that the courts dont actually need it, they just need a part of it, bad things will happen to you. it is abundantly clear that she feels like she is above the law, probably because she continues to get away with things that would land the rest of us in a cell. all of her actions, you know, the ones that flagrantly break the law, those objective facts, point toward that conclusion. the fact that she is getting away with it doesnt mean that what she has done is not wrong, and flagrantly contrary to law.

yes, i agree with you. however, to me, this speaks more to the inadequate integration of technology into politics, and also law, rather than some sort of gross individual incompetency by one person. that is too easy of an answer that shifts the burden of responsibility from significant systemic factors that allowed this situation to occur, and has allowed it to occur in the past, despite the fact that no one seems to really give a shit about those occurrences.

none of what you said matters, and here's why. she fucked up big time by using her personal server. not because of a potential leak of classified information (although that too) but mostly because it gave house republicans an inroad to her private servers. this entire scandal is political rather than substantive, or at least it was until hillary's giant mistake of a response to it.

the house oversight committee has access to any evidence from a criminal investigation being done by the justice department. republicans run the house. hillary knew that anything that she turned over to the justice department (ie her server) would be seen by republicans in the house. i'm sure that the republicans on the house didnt actually care that much about the emails she sent as secretary of state. they knew that she wouldnt send any classified information through email. they were probably far more interested in the rest of the things that went through that server. all of the personal and political things. instead of living with her mistake, obeying the law, and handing over her server as it was to the justice department, she lawyered up (perfectly fine) wiped her servers (whoopsie) and proceeded to make light of the whole situation.

is it fair that house republicans would be able to go through her dirty laundry? not really, but it was her mistake that opened that door, and instead of obeying the law and doing the right thing and withdrawing, she decided that her personal ambitions were worth the things that she would have to do to cover up the incident.

i very much doubt that she hid any official emails from the justice department, but by choosing which emails to provide them with, she broke the law. period. she decided that protecting her political ambitions was more important than obeying the law. period.

to me, its indicative of the sad state of US politics when someone who, by all measures, seems to be quite reasonable and well spoken, only requires "science [non]deni[al]" as a minimum criterion for a political candidate with respect to their environmental views. this is absolutely not good enough. not even close. this is probably the most pressing and important issue for literally every single country on the planet. we've already passed the point where it'd be acceptable to just turn a blind eye to it; we're at the point where we need to be pushing for candidates who want to take aggressive action about this issue. hillary, i think, could be much stronger on this issue, but she is also leagues ahead of johnson on this issue.

it's a minimum requirement, meaning that i will not vote for anyone who denies science. if trump were the same person, but was not a crazy anti-vaxxer, global warming denier, i would still not vote for him.

on the other hand if tim kaine, a guy who i happen to like, were to suddenly start denying science, i would never vote for him again, no matter how many of his other policies i still agreed with.

yes, i prefer hillary's environmental policy to johnson's, but policy and character need to be weighed.

who cares? what is johnson going to compromise on with republicans that will benefit anyone? because i promise you, the parts of his platform that you like, will not be up for debate. the current crop of republicans will never compromise on those issues. if you're excited for compromise on destroying the EPA, defunding all sorts of public services that benefit poor people, and reducing taxes on the rich from their already paltry levels, then that's great for you, i guess.

it's all about end results for me. if he understands that global warming is a threat to our collective future but wants to employ different methods to solve the problem, all i care about is that they work. if he can somehow use markets to eliminate our carbon footprint i dont care if he cuts the EPA out of global warming. i'm open to any solution, as long as the person i'm voting for is actually trying to solve the problem.

again, i don't really know what hillary's internal motivations are, and i dont' care to speculate on that, especially since i don't find it particularly fruitful or relevant. but, you do you, man.

i'm not going to ignore the words and actions of someone running for president. but hey, you do you man.