Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
I gave you positive rep for the bulk of your post, but I must disagree with this portion. The single biggest gripe I have with President Obama is his refusal to seriously investigate, much lest prosecute, the manifest and manifold crimes of the Bush administration. Holding this in mind, Trump's promise to appoint a special prosecutor to INVESTIGATE, and, then, if necessary, prosecute Clinton for her own official misdeeds during her tenure in Federal office is hardly out of order. The such would not be the act of a dictator, but simply the Constitutional system working as originally intended. Further, I interpret Trump's remarks concerning the Second Amendment to the US Constitution not as an incitement to inflict harm upon Mrs. Clinton, nor to engage in any other act of terrorism, but to maintain an armed populace as the reservoir of the bulk of the nation's military potential. In other words, as has often been said, "The purpose of the Second Amendment is to remind the government of the First Amendment.".
Furthermore, Hillary's attribution of the birther argument against President Obama to racism flies in the face of my own analysis of Ted Cruz's lack of Constitutional qualification for the Presidency on the basis of his known biography, as it also applies to (born in Mexico to US citizen parents) George Romney's presidential campaign in 1968, and probably to (Panama Canal Zone-born (in off-base housing (the on-base hospital in which he claims to have been born not then existing!))) John McCain's candidacy in 2008. I agree that Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona Territory, was qualified to be President in 1964, yet stricter birthers than I would disagree.
Finally, I interpret the Democrats' knee-jerk reaction to the email hack by blaming the Russians , and then threatening them with cyber "counter-attack", to be a ploy to divert attention from the contents of the revelations themselves.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with greenlight concerning the current US-Russia confrontation.
|
I agree that Obama should have pursued investigation and, if the evidence was there--I have no doubt it would be--pursued prosecution of Dubya's henchmen. But Trump hasn't issued a reasonable request for an investigation of Clinton--he has promised his fascist base that he would put her in jail. And there's a big difference with Obama: he didn't run against a lame duck Bush, who had already served two terms. Thus, he wouldn't have been pursuing a banana republic-like persecution of someone who committed the heinous crime of running against him, unlike Drumpf. And I've already made my case earlier in this thread for Drumpf's hate speech being an incitement to violence, not a call for gun fanatics to go to the polls.
I agree with HRC that the birther bullshit about Obama was based in racism.
The difference with the other examples you cited (Cruz, McCain, George Romney, etc.) is that there is no doubt as to where they were born; the only question was whether they were constitutionally barred from serving as president. With Obama, saying he wasn't born in Hawaii was total bullshit. Even fascist commentator Pat Buchanan said that a local Hawaiian newspaper's listing of Obama's birth under local births put to rest any doubt he was born in the US.
Finally, foreign interference in US elections is a very valid concern. I don't give a shit whether hacked emails are Clinton's or Trump's. Cyber counterattacks are very much in order.