Freedom of Speech doesn't grant freedom from scrutiny.
It's within my rights to assert that the world would probably be a better place if Israel and Saudi Arabia didn't exist- it'd also be within the rights of people who disagree to say that they disagree with me.
Or, not vote for me if I were running for office.
Now regarding the significance of what he said: no, it really isn't that big of a deal and yeah, the media is definitely overplaying his statement. However there is a legitimacy to denouncing Trump for saying it, not specifically because of what he said, but because it's one more dumbass statement he's made out of a sea of dumbass statements he's made. It's indicative of how much of a buffoon he is.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Freedom of Speech doesn't grant freedom from scrutiny.It's within my rights to assert that the world would probably be a better place if Israel and Saudi Arabia didn't exist- it'd also be within the rights of people who disagree to say that they disagree with me.
Or, not vote for me if I were running for office.
Now regarding the significance of what he said: no, it really isn't that big of a deal and yeah, the media is definitely overplaying his statement. However there is a legitimacy to denouncing Trump for saying it, not specifically because of what he said, but because it's one more dumbass statement he's made out of a sea of dumbass statements he's made. It's indicative of how much of a buffoon he is.
Good post
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Now regarding the significance of what he said: no, it really isn't that big of a deal and yeah, the media is definitely overplaying his statement. However there is a legitimacy to denouncing Trump for saying it, not specifically because of what he said, but because it's one more dumbass statement he's made out of a sea of dumbass statements he's made. It's indicative of how much of a buffoon he is.
Yes and we always talk about the things indicative of Trump being a buffoon but somehow never focus on all the things indicative Hilary is a liar, is corrupt, etc.
In your personal opinion why do you feel that is? Why are we more outraged at the buffoon as opposed to a dishonest, corrupt, individual?
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes and we always talk about the things indicative of Trump being a buffoon but somehow never focus on all the things indicative Hilary is a liar, is corrupt, etc.In your personal opinion why do you feel that is? Why are we more outraged at the buffoon as opposed to a dishonest, corrupt, individual?
Well he's liberal so he's not going to focus on something that hurts his case. Then again, he specifically mentioned Trump so there's no need to get into the game of "well, she's just as bad!"
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
RH, it's funny how anytime someone brings up something current, you have to bring up something completely in the past and irrelevant at this point. It wasn't right back then and it isn't right now. Not to mention, it's hardly as serious as Hilary's benghazi fiasco that cost lives.
Clinton's email operations (w/r/t having a private server, as well as deleting many emails) are identical to Rice's, Rove's, and other highly placed Republican politicians. Only she has been targeted for an expensive and protracted investigation.
I have to point out similar situations that did not draw the same ire because it seems to me that there is a huge double standard in place. Either deleting emails is a signal that something treasonous took place (in which case Rove needs to be arrested alongside Clinton) or it is par for the course (and the "controversy" is a distraction).
In regards to your change of topic:
The Benghazi trial lasted for years and not one charge stuck, despite intense grilling from investigators determined to find any shred of evidence that would malign Clinton. You studied law; when even an adversarial investigator can't find any misconduct, what conclusion must the court draw?
Clinton's email operations (w/r/t having a private server, as well as deleting many emails) are identical to Rice's, Rove's, and other highly placed Republican politicians. Only she has been targeted for an expensive and protracted investigation.I have to point out similar situations that did not draw the same ire because it seems to me that there is a huge double standard in place. Either deleting emails is a signal that something treasonous took place (in which case Rove needs to be arrested alongside Clinton) or it is par for the course (and the "controversy" is a distraction).
In regards to your change of topic:
The Benghazi trial lasted for years and not one charge stuck, despite intense grilling from investigators determined to find any shred of evidence that would malign Clinton. You studied law; when even an adversarial investigator can't find any misconduct, what conclusion must the court draw?
Clinton's email operations (w/r/t having a private server, as well as deleting many emails) are identical to Rice's, Rove's, and other highly placed Republican politicians. Only she has been targeted for an expensive and protracted investigation.I have to point out similar situations that did not draw the same ire because it seems to me that there is a huge double standard in place. Either deleting emails is a signal that something treasonous took place (in which case Rove needs to be arrested alongside Clinton) or it is par for the course (and the "controversy" is a distraction).
You are incorrect when you say it was the same as Rice's as she never used emails only her aides did. Was Rove ever the SoS? Hillary was investigated because when Republicans went after her for Benghazi so few emails of hers popped up it signaled a problem. Thats how she got caught publicly.
The reality we have seen now is that Hillary was to big to jail, even give a penalty to. And Hillary STILL mucks up any talks she has about her server and what the FBI has said. To big to jail, thats it.
Besides Wikileaks is doing all the dirty work now so no matter what the legal outcome we can still see that outside groups are still focusing on her.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Clinton's email operations (w/r/t having a private server, as well as deleting many emails) are identical to Rice's, Rove's, and other highly placed Republican politicians. Only she has been targeted for an expensive and protracted investigation.I have to point out similar situations that did not draw the same ire because it seems to me that there is a huge double standard in place. Either deleting emails is a signal that something treasonous took place (in which case Rove needs to be arrested alongside Clinton) or it is par for the course (and the "controversy" is a distraction).
In regards to your change of topic:
The Benghazi trial lasted for years and not one charge stuck, despite intense grilling from investigators determined to find any shred of evidence that would malign Clinton. You studied law; when even an adversarial investigator can't find any misconduct, what conclusion must the court draw?
It didn't draw the same ire because those people weren't running for president. Not to mention this election has been quite fascinating to everyone because of the candidates, there is a lot more attention on things. So I don't know why you are surprised there is more ire, and I don't necessarily think it's a double standard because people care more about the president of the united states as opposed to the other people you mentioned.