0
16

[–] mscomies 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Now I'm wondering what would have happened if Nixon destroyed his tapes instead of handing them over.

0
24

[–] Nuday 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

Still would have gotten screwed. He didn't have the advantage of blind support from a large chunk of the population just for allegedly having a vagina and embodying all the worst portions of second wave feminism. Do people really want her going down in the history books as the first female president? There's plenty of way better choices.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] biopticstream 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree. I don't think equality is at all a bad thing. What is bad is when "equality" becomes blindly fighting for and supporting someone just because they are a woman, or black, or hispanic, or gay, or transgender, etc.. Then they bash on anyone who has anything slightly negative to say about whatever they are supporting. Just because she is a woman doesn't mean that she can't be every bit as corrupt as any male President. She seems to be proving that, but her supporters won't see it, and will vote for her anyway.

0
12

[–] RoninSnowman 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Funny you bring up Nixon when Hillary was FIRED from the committee set to investigate/prosecute him and she was deemed a unethical lawyer by her own Democratic supervisors. I'm all for a woman President, just not her.. Really to use the current theme..No more Bush's or Clinton's, EVER!

0
7

[–] mscomies 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not fan of Clinton at all, but I'm getting mixed messages from Google with snopes saying the opposite. Do you have a good source for this?

0
2

[–] sudsywudsy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I hate the notion that people will elect a female president just because it hasn't happened yet. It is beyond stupid and I think somewhat offensive to woman. As if they need a token female president. Lets try to elect someone who has the right qualities. Unfortunately that would mean finding someone who is not involved in politics at all.

0
2

[–] chmod [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

this... This.. THIS!!!

Seriously, are there no other alternatives??

0
1

[–] leavingreddit 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Seriously hoping for that Warren/Sanders-Sanders/Warren ticket. Not sure the US is ready for a female pres. but if its going to be anyone I want it to be Warren.

0
8

[–] gold_and_silver 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

0
6

[–] ovta 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is infuriating. She is literally saying she would rather find the people responsible for the killings rather than attempting to prevent them in the first place. This contradicts what she says seconds before when she expresses the need to prevent future occurrences of these kinds of events. I can't believe this person is a presidential candidate.

0
0

[–] AliveInTheFuture 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I understand what she's saying in this context. All that matters is ensuring the security of the people in our embassies, not the motive attackers might have.

0
7

[–] sergeantslate 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Obviously she would rather suffer the consequences of deleting the emails than having her emails reviewed.

0
5

[–] flock-o-turtles 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Yes, inquiring minds wonder what was so bad that she chose to delete? I detest Hilary and refuse to vote for a D or an R anymore. Last election I voted Green. I figure that at least I am voicing my opinion.

0
4

[–] Grumpy_Old_Man 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Because she knows the consequences will be 0. If you or I did something similar, we would be charged with obstruction and destroying evidence.

0
4

[–] RoninSnowman 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

To myself, the deletion is damning enough, it's willful destruction of evidence/state property, those emails belong to you and I and all the rest of America's citizens' who demand transparency in OUR government. This is atrocious and heinous in it's own admission.

0
4

[–] jiveinthehive 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I don't understand why anyone who is planning on running for office ever has any conversations that could be used against them in such a flippantly recoverable fashion. Meet up somewhere, wear disguises, do it old school. Why have it in a place where any hacker or casual server or computer enthusiast can access it?

0
3

[–] SomethingClever 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Maybe it's an age gap/generational thing? Perhaps they just assume that emails are like physical letters. Burn them and they're gone.

0
3

[–] mr_skeltal 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

So if anybody else read this post yesterday, this would be an actual legitimate case in which to apply the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Not that they will do that though, they reserve that for picking on Muslims apparently.

0
1

[–] flock-o-turtles 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Couldn't the NSA just retrieve all of those emails?

0
1

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I can't wait to hear Adam and John talk about this one.

It's too delicious to believe my friends.

ITM ;)

0
0

[–] MadMonkey 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Seems pretty illegal and a damning thing to do when considering a run for office.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)