Hacker News Reader

Comment by spinlock | Hacker News Reader

I understand your argument and I might even agree with it. But, I would like to point out that there is a difference if we consider objective facts. Fact: Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. That's how he has shown a disrespect for our system of government.

Now, I realize that Trump supporters really don't get why it's bad to put your rival in jail. But, that objective fact does actually matter to people who care about a functioning government.

At the end of the day, I don't think you can converse with Trump supporters. They are like creationists in their utter disregard for reality.

View on HN

It's bad to put your opponent in jail if your opponent does not belong in jail and equally bad to not put your opponent in jail if they do belong there.

In a properly functioning country, status as "opponent" or "non-opponent" has nothing to do with going to jail. Right now we don't seem to have that; destruction of evidence is one of many things that would put any normal person in jail.

Given that Trump's opponent actually committed crimes, Trump is actually showing respect for our system of government. To let the powerful go unpunished is to disrespect it.

> Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected.

actually he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to the case which honestly should have been done a long time ago and based on the context of it is perfectly reasonable.

No. he actually said this:

Clinton: "it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country."

Trump: "Because you'd be in jail."

Maybe, (surprise, surprise) Trump wasn't thinking it through and just wanted to get that quip in on Clinton but the language is clear: If Trump was in charge of the law in the US, Clinton would be in jail.

Parse it all you want, but Trump has continued to say that in his stumps and is fine with selling merchandise that says Clinton should be in prison.

Or maybe he was implying that she would be in jail after a fair trial because he (and his supporters) believes that she has committed perjury and illegally destroyed government documents, among other crimes. There's really no evidence that this was meant as a threat, especially considering he said she would be _investigated_ by a special prosecutor (rather than just being sent to jail immediately). What I believe was meant here is that if he was leading the country he would not allow her to get out of having a fair trial (which it is claimed she has gotten out of by having control over the government). I mean, I could be completely wrong, but either way saying "the language in clear" greatly simplifies this situation. Not that it really matters to me given his political opinions, but I feel that accusations like this are what led to the whole us vs. them mentality on both sides of this campaign.

If you or I had destroyed evidence and lied to both Congress and the FBI repeatedly about it, I think we'd be in jail.

Clinton is becoming vaguely reminiscent of Julius Caesar, who had to repeatedly duck lawsuits by taking up governmental positions that carried freedom from prosecution.

The last time the Republicans put a special prosecutor on a Clinton that President was trying to stop Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States.

Again, there's reality and there's a belief that Hilary murdered someone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com