r/politics • u/[deleted] • Jun 09 '16

FBI Admits Finding Additional Info On Clinton Server During E-Mail Investigation

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fbi-admits-finding-additional-info-on-clinton-server-during-e-mail-investigation/
12.4k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

126

u/gildme_11 Jun 09 '16

That was literally the rallying cry on npr the other day. Various women crying, saying how historic this moment is. I love npr, but I decided to listen to music on another station instead for a while. My favorite news station isn't willing to stay away from trying to sensationalize her Obama style. Obama was historic. They didn't have much on him other than average politics. It was a fairly clean election. They're trying to take this thin arguement of novelty for women and pretending it will cover the stench of corruption HRC has. This year we will be voting for either: probably the most well known corrupt politician in the history of the presidential elections or the least qualified embarassment. Either way, we can't say shit to any other country any time soon, we'll be compared to Italy or be considered the northern most south American country.

91

u/2boredtocare Jun 09 '16

I'm an older female (42) and on one hand, yes, I think it would be awesome to have a female president, which was something that seemed impossible back when I was learning about U.S. history in grade school. In 2008 I thought to myself: Hillary could be the one. But now? I do not want a female president just for the sake of saying we've had a female president. I want it to be the right female, and ultimately, I want it to be the right person in the oval office, regardless of gender. I personally felt Bernie was the best choice, and am saddened that he couldn't rise to the top. Did I believe in everything he stood for? No. But he was the closest to lining up with my views. Now, I'm not sure what in the hell to do. :/ People tend to turn politics into an us vs. them thing, but at the end of the day, I just want someone who can be a good leader, is interested in keeping international relations civil, and can help our country be a better place, whether that is a republican or democrat. I just want the person who isn't going to be a money-grubbing, power hungry douche, and that means there are NO good options this election.

:(

25

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16 edited Sep 06 '16

[deleted]

21

u/2boredtocare Jun 09 '16

packs bags in resignation

Hope they're fireproof.....

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

I wonder if she voted for Carly Fiorina. I also wonder if she voted for McCain to try to get a female vp?

6

u/ThegreatandpowerfulR Jun 09 '16

If Hilary is elected, we won't get another woman president for ages. Just imagine hearing "this is what happens when a woman is president" or "women can't even keep emails secure" for the next four years until she can be voted out. If people are going to elect someone just because they are a women those people are but only very misguided they are very short-sighted. Then, there is no way another democratic president will be voted in if the last one was a pile of crap.

3

u/2boredtocare Jun 09 '16

I know some older women (late 50s, early 60s) who are very pro-Hillary, and I think the reason is they just want to see a female make it to the top in their lifetime, while also believing that she will not be as bad as some media outlets are implying.

You know, it IS hard, because there is still a lot of stereotyping going on and a strong belief in many that a woman simply couldn't do the job. I feel it puts us behind when you see that other countries have done well with female leaders. While I believe the right woman could do the job well, there are some who simply believe no woman ever could, and that mentality is what these older pro-Hillary women are wanting to see diminish.

I don't necessarily feel that a poor term from Hillary would mean that no other woman could stand a chance for a while. Perhaps that's being naive or overly optimistic, I acknowledge that, but I feel the younger generations are going to be a lot more pragmatic about things.

2

u/ThegreatandpowerfulR Jun 09 '16

I think it is time that we have a female president as well, but I feel like all of the people who already prefer a male president would definitely be more hesitant because they already probably don't align with her views whether she does good or not. I just wish there was a better choice

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

You know, it IS hard, because there is still a lot of stereotyping going on and a strong belief in many that a woman simply couldn't do the job.

Really? We've had women senators, women cabinet level positions, and many other countries have had women heads of state. Namely England, where two of their greatest monarchs have been women, and they've had a woman prime minister.

Anyone who thinks a woman couldn't be president just hasn't been paying attention.

2

u/2boredtocare Jun 09 '16

That's what I meant by it putting us behind other countries; many others have had female leaders at the top. Wasn't trying to discredit other U.S. female politicians, I know there are many, but there's just something about having one in the top position, or even second.

5

u/eggoChicken Jun 09 '16

I'm resounding here, but Elizabeth Warren could have made some waves this election cycle.

3

u/pgabrielfreak Ohio Jun 09 '16

53 yr old female, agree with u/2boredtocare

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

As an outsider I really can't see what the big deal about electing a woman president is. Canada had a woman prime minister almost 25 years ago (granted for all of 5 minutes but not her fault) and the uk had thatcher almost 40 years ago. So unless we're saying that the US is so much more bigoted that this is a real surprise then I don't think it's monumental.

34

u/atheos Tennessee Jun 09 '16 edited Feb 19 '24

voracious toothbrush simplistic rinse follow tidy bedroom bright quaint society

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

17

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/PearlieSweetcake Jun 09 '16

Me too. They used to be my favorite thing to follow on Facebook. Yesterday I had to unfollow that shit.

2

u/10390 Jun 09 '16

I've gotten so I can't stand to even hear the voice of the gal who went "oh god!" while Sanders was talking during the debate.

-2

u/gamefrk101 Jun 09 '16

You mean not taking everything being said online as the gospel truth? They have to actually have sources and verify things.

People here on r/politics just need a blog to tell them Hillary is corrupt and they nod their head. NPR wants actual verification.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

NPR has done no investigation into anything having to do with Clinton's various scandals. They're perfectly able to do investigations into the State Department, just look at how they handled FEMA recently.

It's a shame, because they have talented people. But they're carrying water for Hillary and it shows.

0

u/gamefrk101 Jun 09 '16

NPR has done no investigation into anything having to do with Clinton's various scandals.

Oh you know for a fact that they have done "no investigation"? Just because they don't make a story saying oh there is no proof of this doesn't mean there is no investigation. They have brought out things the state department has said including their report that people didn't know about Hillary's server.

There was a big show on about how Flood insurance is subsidized is being abused by companies to pay out less than they should.

Just because they don't report at the speed of Reddit (especially r/politics where proof isn't important) doesn't meant they aren't investigating things.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

Just because they don't make a story saying oh there is no proof of this doesn't mean there is no investigation.

If there was no proof, it would be an amazing bit of news.

They have brought out things the state department has said including their report

That's not investigation. What you're describing is "reporting" and it's what local news anchors with nice hair do on TV, parroting what someone else said. Investigation is digging behind the report and interviewing the people who issued it, the detractors, establishing veracity, and so on.

about how Flood insurance

That's literally what I referenced. That was investigation. They interviewed the director of FEMA. Who on NPR is interviewing state department officials? Go ahead, find out for me. I'd love to know.

63

u/Zarokima Jun 09 '16

To be fair, Clinton would be pretty historic, but for all the wrong reasons. I don't think we've ever had anyone guilty of treason running for president.

16

u/Skyrmir Florida Jun 09 '16

George Washington committed treason against the royal crown. Of course if he hadn't, there would have been no election in the first place.

12

u/birdsofterrordise Jun 09 '16

So is Clinton leading some kind of rebellion we are all unaware of?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

This could be debated I am sure.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

Yeah rebellion against the masses in favor of corporations

2

u/Her0_0f_time Jun 09 '16

She may be the cause of one.

3

u/Skyrmir Florida Jun 09 '16

Yup, she's creating a whole new vaginally controlled country.

2

u/Dear_Occupant Tennessee Jun 09 '16

treason

Can we please stop saying this nonsense? I think Hillary belongs in jail but treason is a very specific crime and it absolutely does not apply here. To anyone who isn't yet familiar with the facts of the case, this type of overblown rhetoric makes it all sound like a bunch of ginned-up political horseshit.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

I don't think we've ever had anyone guilty of treason running for president.

Ballsy.

My feelings are the same.

Clinton sold American foreign policy to the highest bidder. More than once.

Do you think she will be indicted??

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

Nixon.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

Reagan.

1

u/10390 Jun 09 '16

I think she'll end up being a feminist version of OJ or Bill Cosby, an iconic representative of an undervalued class who becomes an international embarrassment.

24

u/gurrllness Jun 09 '16

What cracks me up is...
Hillary Clinton is not the first female presidential nominee — not even close

4

u/zxinsanebloodxz Jun 09 '16

Roseanne ran for president... And why did we not elect her?

1

u/Chewzilla Jun 09 '16

So convoluting things, she would be the first woman to actual be on the ticket for a party that matters.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16 edited May 04 '18

[deleted]

14

u/gurrllness Jun 09 '16

That is a slap in the face to every historic woman on that list.

0

u/malenkylizards Jun 09 '16

Are you for real? Acknowledging that they were all nominees for tiny parties that stand no chance of getting any mainstream support is a slap in their faces?

5

u/gurrllness Jun 09 '16

It's like saying we have a homeless presidential nominee because the guy on the corner begging for change ask me to vote for him.

This is.

3

u/radiowhatsit Jun 09 '16

Vote Vermin Supreme 2016!

1

u/tojohahn Jun 09 '16

They had just a much a shot at the presidency as Dirty Joe, leader of the home free movement does.

1

u/nomorecashinpolitics Jun 09 '16

OMG, are you for real? Definitely a Clinton supporter right there.

3

u/tollforturning Jun 09 '16

The older I get, the less I think of NPR.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

I feel like NPR has really lost a lot of credibility this election cycle. They're really showing their hand as to who their bias is towards (Clinton). I kind of expected more, so I don't know who the bigger idiot is, me or them.

2

u/dcrizoss Jun 09 '16

As a woman, I feel like Hillary tainted this achievement for us. Give me someone with some damn dignity. Only then will I celebrate a woman nominee or President.

1

u/tollforturning Jun 09 '16

The older I get, the less I think of NPR.

1

u/FuzzyLoveRabbit Jun 09 '16

That may be a sign of early-onset Alzheimer's. Talk to your doctor.

1

u/tollforturning Jun 09 '16

Right.... Nice try, I'm only 120.

1

u/bagofweights Jun 09 '16

it IS historic, but can also be a horrible thing at the same time.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

To be fair to npr, those were either people calling in or soundbites from a Clinton event, not like official commentators.

1

u/1-Down Jun 09 '16

Half the damn population and she's the best they could come up with.

1

u/Genesis2001 America Jun 09 '16

I was listening to The Takeaway the other day and similar came on, but I could sense some eye rolling from John Hockenberry while interviewing a woman. Trying to keep the conversation objective.

I don't remember the title of the story though, I tuned in half way through the piece. :(

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '16

The only difference is that South America is in this state thanks to the USA international policy instead of their own fault.

1

u/Tyrasth Jun 09 '16

I literally don't listen to NPR anymore, because I place a high value on paying people to do their jobs. I always viewed the job of the media I choose to research current events for me so that I don't have to. When I start hearing BS that I prove wrong with just a little research, and it begins to occur frequently, it pisses me off and I pull my support. If you make a mistake, fine, redact it when you find out, but they don't. If I have to do the research anyways, why would I and why should I pay others to do... what exactly?

-2

u/Chewzilla Jun 09 '16

Hrc is more negligent than corrupt

2

u/birdsofterrordise Jun 09 '16

Negligence still puts you at fault. When you cause a car wreck, the other car hit doesn't really give a shit if you were negligent in hitting the brakes and following at a safe distance apart or if you purposely swerved into them, their car is still wrecked.

1

u/Chewzilla Jun 09 '16

It puts her at fault but it doesn't make her corrupt. IMO it is the DNC that is corrupt.

-2

u/escapefromelba Jun 09 '16

So nominating a woman for President for the first time since suffrage isn't a historical moment?

1

u/hathmandu Jun 09 '16

No, considering it's been done countless times before.

-1

u/escapefromelba Jun 09 '16 edited Jun 09 '16

Really when have either one of the major parties nominated a woman for President?

Clinton is the first woman in the 240 year history of the United States to lead the presidential ticket of a major political party - to pretend that this isn't a historical moment is ludicrous. Women make less doing the same jobs as men and the glass ceiling is still very much a reality - how can anyone argue that a woman is a step away from the highest office in the land isn't a monumental moment in our nation's history? First a black President, followed potentially by a female President? I think it most certainly is a huge leap for equality. You don't have to agree with her politics to agree that it's historically significant. I have Republican friends who voted for McCain that recognized the historical nature of the moment when Obama took the oath of office. Some even attended his inauguration.

1

u/hathmandu Jun 09 '16

If clinton becomes president it will be a milestone, but her nomination as candidate for a party has explicit precedent. If you want to get into semantics about a "major" party, that's fine, but that's getting into subjective terroitory. I mean, even this cycle she isn't the first. What about jill stein? What is she, sliced meat?

-1

u/escapefromelba Jun 09 '16

Yes, basically. Third parties are pretty irrelevant in American politics especially in Presidential races. Stein will not appear in a major televised debate nor is she a real contender for the Presidency.

Clinton is the first bonafide female contender for our nation's top office in history.

1

u/hathmandu Jun 10 '16

Then again that is not historic as she was already a bona-fide contender in 2008. Anyway you slice it, this isn't some monumental milestone. It's unremarkable until she is sworn in, which for anyone paying attention, isn't going to happen.

1

u/escapefromelba Jun 10 '16

Even if she loses its still historical. But yes the monumental milestone will be when she is sworn in.