> The court of public opinion is not the court of law.
That's exactly my point. Clinton deserves to be brought to the court of law. But her cronies wouldn't let that to happen. It's the job for the public opinion to defeat the cronies and bring the case to the court of law, and then let the law decide fairly. Otherwise we'll soon get the same situation that currently exists in Russia. Putin didn't become a bloody communist dictator in one day (and he probably isn't quite to that level yet but he is getting close), he started with shielding his cronies from the law and with with the use of the corrupt judges to defeat his opponents. All this was accompanied by the pro-democracy public seeing him as "he is our good guy, he is only doing it temporarily for the greater benefit of all".
Note that on some of the "horrible things" ascribed to Trump, his business was brought to the court of law, judged and paid the fine (the infractions were minor, so the fine was minor too). Now that the process is finished, we can really let these infractions stay in the past. Shouldn't we use the same standard for Clinton?
> Half of all voters voted for the other candidate. Calm down and get your head on straight.
Hey, I am calm. Trump wasn't even my favorite candidate to start with. I want to look at the things objectively. I.e. when I say "there is (or isn't) anything scandalous", I'm happy to explain _why_ I think it so, unroll it down to the basic pre-suppositions and discuss whether they are valid and reasonable. But I would like the opponent to do the same rather than rely on the religious dogmas accepted without the conscious examination. Unfortunately, I see a lot of blind religious faith with people breaking down when their dogmas are examined and challenged. Now, everything that talks about the rights and wrongs is a religion, there is no way to get around it, but in this context I'm interested in the scientific theology, not the blind restatements of the dogmas.
no subject
> The court of public opinion is not the court of law.
That's exactly my point. Clinton deserves to be brought to the court of law. But her cronies wouldn't let that to happen. It's the job for the public opinion to defeat the cronies and bring the case to the court of law, and then let the law decide fairly. Otherwise we'll soon get the same situation that currently exists in Russia. Putin didn't become a bloody communist dictator in one day (and he probably isn't quite to that level yet but he is getting close), he started with shielding his cronies from the law and with with the use of the corrupt judges to defeat his opponents. All this was accompanied by the pro-democracy public seeing him as "he is our good guy, he is only doing it temporarily for the greater benefit of all".
Note that on some of the "horrible things" ascribed to Trump, his business was brought to the court of law, judged and paid the fine (the infractions were minor, so the fine was minor too). Now that the process is finished, we can really let these infractions stay in the past. Shouldn't we use the same standard for Clinton?
> Half of all voters voted for the other candidate. Calm down and get your head on straight.
Hey, I am calm. Trump wasn't even my favorite candidate to start with. I want to look at the things objectively. I.e. when I say "there is (or isn't) anything scandalous", I'm happy to explain _why_ I think it so, unroll it down to the basic pre-suppositions and discuss whether they are valid and reasonable. But I would like the opponent to do the same rather than rely on the religious dogmas accepted without the conscious examination. Unfortunately, I see a lot of blind religious faith with people breaking down when their dogmas are examined and challenged. Now, everything that talks about the rights and wrongs is a religion, there is no way to get around it, but in this context I'm interested in the scientific theology, not the blind restatements of the dogmas.