Hillary and Trump

[bax44]

You are not a lawyer and have no idea. Further, you are part of the gang here that piles on a female candidate every chance you have.

 

A warrant is required.

I had promised myself I was done commenting on the thread. But then I read this. Congrats, I think this may be the most obnoxious and ridiculous post ive ever read on the dao bums. And that's saying something. Carry on. Edited October 30, 2016 by bax44

[Jonesboy]

I am stating the best reporting I can find. However you state nothing but useless humor. Obviously you are part of the pile it on Hillary gang for one reason, she is a woman. Moreover failing to properly vet Trump and giving him a free pass.

Then you should know all emails should have been turned over to the FBI already as well as all devices.

 

These emails were found because she was archiving her emails to yahoo as well as correspondence to her husband. The computers and the emails all were under subpoena from two separate investigations if you want to get technical.

 

Also if she shared any classified info with her husband she should go to jail.

[ralis]

I had promised myself I was done commenting on the thread. But then I read this. Congrats, I think this may be the most obnoxious and ridiculous post ive ever read on the dao bums. And that's saying something. Carry on.

You deny the hate speech that is piled on here which is directed towards her.

[ralis]

edit

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[redcairo]

Further, you are part of the gang here that piles on a female candidate every chance you have.

 

Although I have been around about a year now, I don't always read political threads so I apologize if I lack context.

 

But: what other female candidates have "the gang here" piled on?

 

I only ask because it seems like there aren't that many of them at the national level to pile on.

 

And given this one is so extreme (I mean she has, with pride and no secret, basically promised to change fundamentally the first and second amendment) it's kind of easy to see why she'd have some detractors, not even counting the current stuff.

 

As for DT's issues -- yeah, he's got serious issues too, I agree -- it seems to me the issue is not so much everyone is defending him (if anybody did, I did only by suggesting such behavior was typical at that level) as it is people focusing on what they find a lot more important, and those things seem like trivia comparatively. I'm not sure that's the same as just saying they aren't real or are ok.

 

RC

 

PS hadn't heard about the lawsuit you mention, however, I believe very much in innocent until proven guilty, and have seen far too much abuse of the legal system for reputational defamation, so I don't think it's appropriate to bring such things up. I would defend even HC, whom I despise, from things pressed by non-legal entities (e.g. not the FBI) that had not yet gone through trial.

Edited October 30, 2016 by redcairo

[redcairo]

You deny the hate speech that is piled on here which is directed towards her.

 

Please, please, reconsider your definitions, since you are in a communal conversation area.

 

"Hate speech" is talk which is malevolent and incitive toward a given individual or group solely based on that individual or group being part of a defined class against which one is biased.

 

For example, insulting someone solely because they are striped or triangle. Pointing out they are so, or pointing out their politics or behavior suck, neither of those would be hate speech -- but insults specific to, or couched in language specific to, their striped or triangle nature, THAT would be hate speech.

 

Saying someone has behaved criminally when legal authorities are publicly announcing they suspect someone has behaved criminally, is not hate speech.

 

I'm sure there are some personal insults in the thread -- the threads I see around the web on DT surely win for the most egregious insult if it's a contest though, and it would be just as easy to claim that people only hate him because he is "a rich white man." 

 

(Not that both candidates don't have SO many good reasons to dislike them to choose from.)

 

I hope you are not implying that because people don't like a presidential candidate, they just hate 'em cause they're (black, female, whatever). That argument was insulting enough when Obama was running. It'd be just as bad but even worse, just for its getting so old now status, if it's being used for Hillary being a woman.

 

The same people who most despise HC would probably vote Anne Coulter president if she ran LOL.

 

RC

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[ralis]

Please, please, reconsider your definitions, since you are in a communal conversation area.

 

"Hate speech" is talk which is malevolent and incitive toward a given individual or group solely based on that individual or group being part of a defined class against which one is biased.

 

For example, insulting someone solely because they are striped or triangle. Pointing out they are so, or pointing out their politics or behavior suck, neither of those would be hate speech -- but insults specific to, or couched in language specific to, their striped or triangle nature, THAT would be hate speech.

 

Saying someone has behaved criminally when legal authorities are publicly announcing they suspect someone has behaved criminally, is not hate speech.

 

I'm sure there are some personal insults in the thread -- the threads I see around the web on DT surely win for the most egregious insult if it's a contest though, and it would be just as easy to claim that people only hate him because he is "a rich white man." 

 

(Not that both candidates don't have SO many good reasons to dislike them to choose from.)

 

I hope you are not implying that because people don't like a presidential candidate, they just hate 'em cause they're (black, female, whatever). That argument was insulting enough when Obama was running. It'd be just as bad but even worse, just for its getting so old now status, if it's being used for Hillary being a woman.

 

The same people who most despise HC would probably vote Anne Coulter president if she ran LOL.

 

RC

 

Don't lecture me on what constitutes hate speech. I know very well what is happening on this forum. Several threads have been locked due to anti-Semitism and one person suspended.

 

Joeblast stated earlier that Hillary should be in an electric chair. This is the type of speech that is out of bounds here and if you fail to understand the far reaching ramifications of such, then you are living in denial.

[ralis]

So the arguments of Hillary and her supporters

against Trump and his supporters

are that Trump and his supporters

are all racists, bigots, mysogynists, nazis, xenophobics, conspiracy theorists,

and therefore people should instead vote for someone who is under FBI criminal investigation.

LOL!

 

Investigation is not an indictment nor has she been tried in a court of law. Only in the court of public opinion.

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[redcairo]

If it is out of bounds because thedaobums is a "kinder, gentler" sort of forum, and this is disturbing the vibrations of the kumbaya chorus, then I agree.

 

If it is out of bounds because this (quoting specifics) is considered hateful and unallowed even as a flippancy:

 

> Seriously. Nearly everybody I know wants HC in the chair...
>> oh, I want her in the chair...   preferably one connected to 440V

 

Is it kind? No. But it makes me thinks of lots of conversations I've seen where for example, some highly controversial person is said to be "right on the edge of the cliff of insanity" and someone else jokes, "Nudge him off!"

 

I just don't see it as horrible and hateful. If we were standing in sunday school it would be. On the internet -- even in a "thoughtful, philosophical, though often too-spirited and spikey in debate" forum -- it just seems like people making a snarky comment.

 

Maybe my skin is too thick. But I still do not think "anything that qualifies as 'dislike' is hate speech." I think it is very specific to hating because someone is part of a certain group.

 

RC

[redcairo]

Investigation is not an indictment nor has she been tried in a court of law. Only in the court of public opinion.

 

I agree. Yet you used in your own earlier post a claim against DT that is just one civilian not even in trial -- and this at least has the actual FBI officially involved. If your point is only conviction matters, then your own examples probably need to change, right.

 

I apologize if I sounded lecturing previously -- it is so difficult to write on a forum since all 'essay' sounds like a sermon or a rant sometimes. I only was reacting to a little emotion on my part, that was sad you were clearly so upset about it, as I have seen other posts by you and I liked you very much.

 

RC

[ralis]

I agree. Yet you used in your own earlier post a claim against DT that is just one civilian not even in trial -- and this at least has the actual FBI officially involved. If your point is only conviction matters, then your own examples probably need to change, right.

 

I apologize if I sounded lecturing previously -- it is so difficult to write on a forum since all 'essay' sounds like a sermon or a rant sometimes. I only was reacting to a little emotion on my part, that was sad you were clearly so upset about it, as I have seen other posts by you and I liked you very much.

 

RC

 

The trial begins in December. However, even an alleged accusation of rape of any woman let alone an underage girl is shocking and why very few question such on this forum, is beyond me.

[redcairo]

Well there is nothing to question unless we are the investigators and until after the trial. In the case of the FBI making public press releases, that's a little different situation.

 

I actually have an interest in this 'social' topic -- of men accused of rape publicly, without trial, and its repercussions, and the becoming far too common policy of "arranging" for any man someone at high level wants to harm to be promptly accused of such, with such ridiculous timing and repeat on multiple people it becomes unbelievable eventually.

 

I will not support the destruction of US Citizens without due process solely because they are men. I believe all men, and women, should defend this as an egregious injustice -- not to mention a terrifying precedent for social and political manipulation. It would be easier to have this debate were the person in question not a loudmouthed cretin to be honest, but the underlying point is still valid IMO. This is a serious problem in our culture. To me, allowing and encouraging this is basically just supporting the third-wave feminist vision of all men being assumed rapists.

 

RC

Edited October 30, 2016 by redcairo

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[ralis]

Well there is nothing to question unless we are the investigators and until after the trial. In the case of the FBI making public press releases, that's a little different situation.

 

I actually have an interest in this 'social' topic -- of men accused of rape publicly, without trial, and its repercussions, and the becoming far too common policy of "arranging" for any man someone at high level wants to harm to be promptly accused of such, with such ridiculous timing and repeat on multiple people it becomes unbelievable eventually.

 

I will not support the destruction of US Citizens without due process solely because they are men. I believe all men, and women, should defend this as an egregious injustice -- not to mention a terrifying precedent for social and political manipulation. It would be easier to have this debate were the person in question not a loudmouthed cretin to be honest, but the underlying point is still valid IMO. This is a serious problem in our culture. To me, allowing and encouraging this is basically just supporting the third-wave feminist vision of all men being assumed rapists.

 

RC

 

The public has a need to know exactly who Trump is. I imagine the women that have come out in public may have been threatened and told to keep quiet. Rape victims are usually ostracized and not taken seriously. Take for example the recent rapes and sexual abuse at Baylor University and the coverup by the coaches and administration. Kenn Starr was the president and participated in a coverup.

[ralis]

Updated:

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/41592-hillary-and-trump/?p=716538

 

I would never make a generalized statement such as that. There are many in the Trump camp that fit those descriptions.

[Brian]

I am stating the best reporting I can find. However you state nothing but useless humor. Obviously you are part of the pile it on Hillary gang for one reason, she is a woman. Moreover failing to properly vet Trump and giving him a free pass.

Obviously???

 

BTW, if you honestly think I've given Trump "a free pass," you obviously haven't been paying attention.

 

My laughter was a reaction to your (oh so predictable) "you're not a lawyer so you are not qualified to comment" position in juxtaposition with your subsequent statement.

 

Comey has been a Democrat Party operative his entire career and has been involved with the campaign or administration of every Democrat President for the last five decades, including having worked for Bill. He is purely a political creature and to imagine that he would carelessly or casually take such an investigative action without the knowledge and consent of both his political and DoJ bosses strains credulity.

 

Now, want my opinion on the legal issues being raised here?

[ralis]

Obviously???

 

BTW, if you honestly think I've given Trump "a free pass," you obviously haven't been paying attention.

 

My laughter was a reaction to your (oh so predictable) "you're not a lawyer so you are not qualified to comment" position in juxtaposition with your subsequent statement.

 

Comey has been a Democrat Party operative his entire career and has been involved with the campaign or administration of every Democrat President for the last five decades, including having worked for Bill. He is purely a political creature and to imagine that he would carelessly or casually take such an investigative action without the knowledge and consent of both his political and DoJ bosses strains credulity.

 

Now, want my opinion on the legal issues being raised here?

 

You appear to have given him a free pass. Further, I posted reports from journalists, but some respond with hearsay as if such persons have some understanding of the legal process in regards to the latest email revelation.

 

I could care less as to what Comey's politics are, but in this case according to AG Lynch, he acted against DOJ policy. Until that is given clarification, then all comments here are BS. Comey appears to be engaged in electioneering.

 

No, I don't want your opinion unless I see a more balanced discussion here which must include Trump's transgressions, which I stated earlier.

 

BTW, I am tired of the veiled or overtly stated hate towards a woman that is a presidential nominee. Whether it is on this forum or from Trump during several debates.

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[redcairo]

What does her being a woman have to do with it, though?

 

Are people not allowed to have the same response to her 'as a candidate' as people do about any other candidate?

 

RC

[Karl]

It's nothing to do with her being a woman, it's because she is crooked as hell and everybody knows it.

 

You can be equally accused of being sexist just because Trump is a male presidential nominee.

[ralis]

What does her being a woman have to do with it, though?

 

Are people not allowed to have the same response to her 'as a candidate' as people do about any other candidate?

 

RC

 

This is my last response to you. If one weighs the responses in this thread it is very unbalanced in a negative way toward Hillary. Whenever I post relevant information on Trump there is a backlash in almost every case towards what I have posted, in which certain posters immediately begin piling on the negatives toward Hillary.

[ralis]

It's nothing to do with her being a woman, it's because she is crooked as hell and everybody knows it.

 

You can be equally accused of being sexist just because Trump is a male presidential nominee.

 

Everybody knows it without exception? You just proved my point from my last post.

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

This is my last response to you. If one weighs the responses in this thread it is very unbalanced in a negative way toward Hillary. Whenever I post relevant information on Trump there is a backlash in almost every case towards what I have posted, in which certain posters immediately begin piling on the negatives toward Hillary.

The fact that the FBI have opened another investigation into Hillary is reason enough. It is of course not simply about Hillary, but about the entire corrupt mess that she has been an integral part and presided over for many years. Hillary typified K street, revolving door corporatism, cronyism and immunity from the laws that everyone else has to live under.

[ralis]

The fact that the FBI have opened another investigation into Hillary is reason enough. It is of course not simply about Hillary, but about the entire corrupt mess that she has been an integral part and presided over for many years. Hillary typified K street, revolving door corporatism, cronyism and immunity from the laws that everyone else has to live under.

 

Like I said he violated DOJ policy and you fail to understand that simple documented fact. This thread is a pathetic waste.

[Karl]

Like I said he violated DOJ policy and you fail to understand that simple documented fact. This thread is a pathetic waste.

Policy and not law. Big difference. It's not illegal, it's just not the norm. That suggests something big.