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.
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.
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.
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
@FaceDeer@fedia.io was saying is that Hilary Clinton shouldn’t be exempt from …
?
I bring your attention again to the comment I replied to, which reads:
Those are political things. Those are things she should have been voted out of power for, not locked up for.
(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”.
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?