25th June 2016, 4:35 PM
Is it holding her to a standard no one has been held to before? Absolutely! We've all been fools not to consider it important! I can't say if it's sexism that's fueling lots of this sort of comment on her or not (I'm sure it is), but there's another factor. This is the first time in a good long while we've had two major candidates that AREN'T being funded by major political interest groups, at least as far as I know. When the entire field was taking all these donations from the special interest groups, it wasn't something we could use to filter it, but now we've got that. Obama certainly was taking a lot of these donations, and well, Obama has been a bit disappointing and isn't the golden hope we were all dreaming of. I'm not saying Obama has done nothing, but face facts, Obama didn't need congress' permission to close all the camps in Guantanamo Bay. He could have closed Echo with a single executive order, but didn't. Anyway, I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Voting for Clinton is better than Trump. PLENTY of sexists have been slamming Clinton unfairly. That's a fact, but my criticism of her isn't because I'm suddenly picking nits I never picked on before. It's because I WOKE UP. I've realized the systemic problems the entire system has. I'm not claiming conspiracy. I'm claiming far too many politicians are acting in their own selfish interests resulting in a massive mess. No need for conspiracy there, it's just a bunch of random people plotting a bunch of conflicting nonsense that ultimately hurts us far too often, and for decades. So, I've decided the best way to put a stop to it is to start looking for conflicts of interest in candidates and pick accordingly. It's something we SHOULD have been doing all along. But, I'll give you this. 4 years from now, you can gladly take me to task on this. If I'm just letting these conflicts of interest slide in 4 years' time, get on me for my hypocrisy.
As for the gun issue, I have to say this, I've changed my mind on the no guns for those on the no fly list. On the face of it, it's blindly true that possible terrorists shouldn't be getting guns. Everyone can agree on that (and most Americans do), but the problem is the no-fly list is horrible government overreach, and when we say "okay, in this case, let's go ahead and expand it", we're tacitly saying "okay, it's fine to have a lack of due process for this". There's hypocrisy in it, but this is one of the few times when the slope really is slippery. Gun rights need answers, and the Dem's OTHER bill was a no brainer that should have passed.
Now, the FBI's most-wanted list DOES have oversight on it. Let's use that as our model instead and ban anyone on the most-wanted list from buying a gun.
As for the gun issue, I have to say this, I've changed my mind on the no guns for those on the no fly list. On the face of it, it's blindly true that possible terrorists shouldn't be getting guns. Everyone can agree on that (and most Americans do), but the problem is the no-fly list is horrible government overreach, and when we say "okay, in this case, let's go ahead and expand it", we're tacitly saying "okay, it's fine to have a lack of due process for this". There's hypocrisy in it, but this is one of the few times when the slope really is slippery. Gun rights need answers, and the Dem's OTHER bill was a no brainer that should have passed.
Now, the FBI's most-wanted list DOES have oversight on it. Let's use that as our model instead and ban anyone on the most-wanted list from buying a gun.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)