416
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
416 points (100.0% liked)
News
32087 readers
2086 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Frankly, I don't even think Hillary gives a shit about covering for Bill at this stage- The argument that anyone is trying to protect Bill is idiotic.
Right? The time when there might have been some kind of large amount of people wanting to cover for him was maybe...2 and half decades ago? The guy isn't in power, no one cares enough for any of that...
It's mostly the butthurt cons that were spreading black helicopter nonsense and swapping copies of the Clinton Body Count over email back in the 90s that are still obsessed with Bill (and Hillary).
And if she did give a shit about covering for Bill in the past and did anything to meaningfully do that, then by all means, lock her up too.
This shouldn't be political. I don't care if there was a stupid slogan for that chanted by idiots, a broken clock can be right sometimes.
Like giving us the sitting POTUS as a candidate in the first place? Worshipping at the altar of Kissenger and Nunn? Color revos? Or any number of things during her tenure as Secretary of State?
Those are political things. Those are things she should have been voted out of power for, not locked up for.
I was thinking more along the lines of the "helping cover up pedophilia and human trafficking" thing. That's a crime worthy of prison time.
https://medium.com/5th-column-cables/hillary-clintons-war-crimes-are-unforgivable-no-real-progressive-could-ever-support-her-75f9a19e9c3d
She was voted out of power. And then we got Trump.
I'm no fan of Clinton, but rather a million times her than Trump. But the US clearly needs better candidates.
Certainly, she would have been a better president than Trump. But that's damning with extremely faint praise. A rotten turnip would have been a better president than Trump.
I've long tried to tell Americans that they need to spend their effort on the party primaries, that's the last chance for actual options to be considered. Once you get to the election itself the only thing left to evaluate is "which is the lesser evil?"
Everything is political, my friend. She should absolutely face consequences for her role in the heinous war crimes committed while she was secretary of state.
We've got literal piles of active Nazis and you want to go after Hillary for doing status quo shit.
Yeah, okay. Let me add her to the list. I think I've got a spot here at #187.
Don't worry, I want to go after the fascists. But I reject the assertion that making life worse for Americans is somehow more morally wrong than making life worse for Libyans. In fact, I will go so far as to say that if you are willing to hand wave away atrocities as "status quo shit" then it makes sense that fascism is where things end up.
But making life worse for more groups is objectively more morally wrong than making life worse for fewer groups.
I wasn't talking about who is better or worse than who. Do you actually think nobody less bad than trump should face any kind of justice?
Edited: clarity
You literally said worse twice, but you weren't talking about better or worse?
Huh?
I mean I'm not talking about who is worse than who. For the record I do think Trump is far worse than either Clinton. But I absolutely reject that that somehow means it's fine to authorise death squads etc. or that it's somehow "not important enough" to remember all the horrible shit that happened under the Obama admin.
Nobody said any of that.
Yes they did lol, the first thing I replied to was
Crimes against humanity are not "just political things".
They never said said crimes against humanity are just political things.
The comment is still there, I can still read it, you could too if you wanted to
And I did. And you're wrong.
Okay, you tell me what they are saying here then?
You've completely lost the plot.
What @FaceDeer@fedia.io was saying is that Hilary Clinton shouldn't be exempt from being locked up if she's guilty of crimes.
I don't think they'd even disagree with you that she should be locked up if found guilty of crimes against humanity. They even cited an example of one.
That's not a nice thing to say.
I don't see any way of reading those posts which I can interpret the way you said though. Which words are you specifically referencing when you say that
?
I bring your attention again to the comment I replied to, which reads:
(Emphasis mine)
This is in a direct response to @Maeve@kbin.earth 's comment listing several things which are firmly in the category of "atrocities".
So how exactly do you reach your interpretation?
All of your questions can be answered by reading from the top of the thread down instead of being stuck partway through. Hence why I say you've lost the plot.
No, that's wrong. Reading back further only shows that this person thinks locking up Hillary would be fine specifically and only if she covered up for Epstein, not any of that stuff in the other comment, which would be political.
You're making things up.
No u
And there it is.
Oh, I see, you're just a troll. Well, you got me this time I guess.
Nice cop out.