fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3554 ]

[ SECRET POST #3554 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3554 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #508.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yeah, one's a clown and the other committed treason. Only one felony punishable by death there.

Clinton committed treason now, oh wow. Next you'll also tell me she eats puppies.

Also, if you were in any way concerned about human rights, you would not support the rape-accused, rape-apologetic, pro-torture, pro-death penalty, anti-immigrant rights, anti-free media clown.

I don't support either of them. But do you really think what she did wasn't treason? Because it actually does meet the not only the general definition, but your federal definition, too.

I thought the people whose job it is to decide that said she couldn't be charged with anything?

No, they said the average prosecutor wouldn't prosecute the case if she were an average defendant. They also stated there was clearly wrong doing on her part both directly and indirectly and that she improperly handled and disclosed classified information.

No, they said the average prosecutor wouldn't prosecute the case if she were an average defendant.

I... so... what? How do you get from "the average prosecutor would not prosecute the case" to "she is literally guilty of treason"? What the fuck kind of mental leap did you take to cross that gap?

As Secretary of State she violated federal laws that led to the unlawful disclosure of classified information. That is treason according American federal law.

She was not convicted of it. We have no way of knowing whether she would have been convicted of it. The only thing we know about the situation is that she was not prosecuted, and that in the judgment of an expert on the case, no reasonable person would prosecute for it under normal circumstances.

That does not add up to "guilty of treason".

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 01:01 (UTC) - Expand

She did not follow protocol with her e-mails. That was dumb. That deserved criticism.

That is also not treason. Do you really equate breaking a rule at work - even at a government job - to committing treason? Do you even know what treason is?

I worked for your government for six months as an IT tech and signed the same non-disclosure agreement that she did. And yes, it's treason. The legal contract states it's treason, your federal laws state it is treason. She didn't break a rule at work, she leaked classified information.

For lo, it is written: never under any circumstances get into an argument about the Clinton e-mail scandal with someone who works in IT

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-28 01:02 (UTC) - Expand

No? I do not think she committed treason. Because that would be an absolutely crazy leap of logic.

if you were in any way concerned about human rights

This sort of guilt-trip logic is really starting to wear thin. Can't you guys try something new?

What is your issue with that kind of argument

serious question

What has Clinton done for human rights? Serious question. I only know of some things she's done against human rights but nothing for. And her husband is accused of rape and she was very much a rape apologist about it. Although she was very vocal about chemically castrating the falsely accused college lacrosse players a few years back, so there's that.

I don't think the argument is particularly pro-Clinton. I mean, I don't know what anon is thinking, but it seems like what they're saying is that, no matter what you think of Clinton, Trump is worse on issues concerning human rights.

Is it just frustrating because you feel like it's a double standard? or what?

I'm not frustrated, just curious since there are Clinton supporters here and I don't know any. The Americans I know are all against a candidate, not for one of them. I thought AIRT was specifically talking about things Clinton has done or has promised and I'm curious what those things might be.

It's smug, self-righteous, and preachy, but hey, that's a progressive for ya.

So it seems like one of the things that's going on here is that anon thinks that it is just clearly true that there is a stark, moral different between Trump and Clinton with regards to human rights, and you think it is just clearly not the case. And so what anon means as moral conviction comes across as self-righteous to you? Is that a fair summary?

No, anon is making a moral judgment about people who don't agree with them. That's what comes across as self-righteous.

Do you think there's any time when it's appropriate to make a moral judgment about people who disagree with you? Or is it just across-the-board self-righteous?

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:44 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:47 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:51 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-27 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

Guilt-trip? Well, gee, I'm sorry for implying that human rights are kind of important for a presidential candidate to support.

You're not. You're implying that only a person who didn't care about human rights would vote for Trump. Which is oversimplification and emotional manipulation.

But that's...true...

No, seriously, Trump would be an absolute disaster for human rights, full stop. The only people that would vote for him must not care about them, either through malice or apathy. That's it. End of. It really is that simple.

Actually, Trump was the one who committed treason.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only