DrmDoc

I've thought about this and imagined what position in government might one hold where there may not be severe repercussions for unapproved speech. Janitorial came to mind. I concede that there may indeed be government positions with greater freedom of speech; however, those in positions like Mr. Dore certainly have greater responsibilities to the public and, therefore, fewer speech liberties than we common folk.

I disagree. Although opinion in the private sector (civilians) may also have certain restrictions, those in government are a lot less free because they are presumed to speak for the government and, thereby, speak for us as the electorate of that government. There is a presumption in the private sector as well; however, private sector employers do not represent the electorate.

I think SJ got it right here. If a person is punished for expressing an opinion, then that person was never really free to express that opinion. Further, people in government service don't, for good reasons, have the same freedoms as those who aren't. In the military, for example, there's a different set of rules for soldiers because of a need for strict discipline in battle and adherence to the chain of command. Officials in government are seen as speaking for the government rather than themselves and should be more thoughtful of their position and circumspect about what they say.

I agree, it's not in the best interests of a community's trust and confident to make publicly divisive statements. He, unlike civilians, doesn't have the liberty to express either a public or private opinions that could be construed as compromising his ability to do his job with integrity. However, there have been statements made in forums like this that suggest political correctness has gone too far by infringing on our right to free speech and labeling those who do speak as bigots and racists. I don't know whether Chief Dore's rant was truly racist but it was certainly uninformed, in my opinion.

Perhaps you misunderstood, my question regards her relative qualifications for the presidency, which includes what disqualifies Mrs. Clinton above all other candidates. I'm not asking about your thoughts on the other candidate and you don't have to reference them here, I'm asking you what makes Hillary least qualified. Your commentary thus far do not amount to any specific disqualifying factor unique to Mrs. Clinton that render's her least qualified. Given your continued avoidance here, I may only assume that you don't know of any unique disqualifying factors of which only Mrs. Clinton is guilty.

A Louisiana police chief was recently fired because of his social media criticism of the President's handling of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. According to this Washington Post article, Jonesville's police chief Skylar Dore criticized Pres. Obama in a Facebook rant for not labeling BLM protestors as terrorist after three fellow Baton Rouge officers he called "brothers" were killed by a lone gunman. Dore, who is white, was fired by Jonesville's "majority-black" town council who preside over a population that is 70% black. His firing didn't come without outrage and protest by other town residents. So, was chief Dore's criticism fair or bigoted? Was his firing warranted?

So, in your opinion, Hillary is less qualified than the only other candidate capable of winning this election because...?

What's coming to light is a sack full of apparent resentment and political tripe over an already decided primary and non-issues with intent to elect an unqualified candidate, Trump, to POTUS.

Criticism is ok but bigoted criticism is not. Examples of bigoted criticism are those that seek to divert attention away from a cause or movement and those with intent to dilute the effectiveness of a cause such as suggesting its focus should include other complex issues (e.g., black on black crime) unrelated to the origin of the cause.

Honestly? You don't see how the kind of preconceptions of a people you've expressed have led to the unfair treatment of people of color, which has led to the rise of a movement and deaths of both police and civilians? There are, obviously, preconceptions on both sides of the issue but that shouldn't be an excuse for unequal justice.

Yes, but you're judging a neighborhood on just a handful of individuals. There are thousands of individuals in those neighborhood who have jobs, pay taxes, and don't commit crimes. If someone committed murder in your neighborhood, would that make you a murder? There is crime everywhere in our society, which is why we should all be cautious everywhere. But you seem to have made up your mind about a group of people in our society who are frequently vilified unjustly and disproportionately prosecuted for similar crimes committed by every other group. It's apparent thinking like yours that has led to civil unrest and the rise of the BLM movement so many fear.

This is still just so much sour grapes when we're talking about who could be the next leader of the free world. Unquestionably, there are only two major candidates in this political contest with any real potential to win. In those two candidates, the American voting public need to make a choice for the good of the nation and put aside petty political nonsense and allegations that don't serve the better candidate. It time to get smart, get over it, and get behind the only intelligent choice for POTUS. Most of us, including both Sanders and Republican supporters, agree who that intelligent choice is.

I like Adam Conover's take on dog breeding, he calls them a bunch of genetic monsters. Maybe these Russian foxes are also a bunch of inbred monsters, which would only require a few generations to make. After further review of the article, I wouldn't consider their fox domestication experiment evolution in the true sense of the word. Evolution is a more gradual process shaped by environmental influences. According to the article, researchers were seeing significant behavioral changes in their animals by the fourth generation and continue to see both internal and external physical differences from foxes in the wild. They are now likely more dog than fox.

If not hurt and resentful, then why are some of you still so angry that you continue to bash Hillary short of endorsing a man (Trump) clearly unqualified to lead our country? As Bernie's supporters, why not follow his lead, let go of your palpable hate, and support Hillary for most likely the betterment of our nation's future?

Much of the negative feelings expressed here, I believe, has to do with hurt feelings over Bernie's loss and how he lost. However, it's delusional to believe a businessman bred in the harsh environment of NY politics is anymore trustworthy than Mrs. Clinton. The voters who favor The Donald over Hillary should put aside their misinformed beliefs and consider the advice expressed by many Republican leaders that Donald's presidency wouldn't be good for the country.

This answer to that question might be...that is for Middle Eastern Islamic societies to decide for themselves. Is it always an outsider's responsibility to insert himself into the issues of another nation or people without invitation?

It seems that criticism isn't the worst of what Muslim-Americans might endure considering the plight of those who voluntarily choose to defend our flag and country. According to this CBS news report, at least 20 marines, including officers and drill sergeants, have been implicated in the abuse of Muslim recruits with at least one incident resulting the death of a young Pakistani-American recruit. This obviously patriotic American-Muslim was, allegedly, verbally and physically abused before, allegedly, taking his own life, which his parents insist he did not do. In another incident, several drill sergeants are accused of calling another young recruit a terrorist and ordering him into a clothes dryer where he received several burns. Apparently some worshipers of Islam do need protection or at least equal treatment in military service to our nation.

I don't think this is about absolving criminals of responsibility for their actions, it's about transparency that promote integrity and trust above an often impenetrable blue wall of us against you, right or wrong. Wrong is wrong, even when done by the people we charge with policing our communities. Huffington Post reports a study which found that certain police transparency measures resulted in less violence and fewer civilian complaints. Wanting transparency in policing isn't a presumption of bad acts on the part of police, I think it's an effort to improve those acts.

I didn't find a link in this thread to a detailed description of Mrs. Clinton's justice reform; therefore, I've provided a link here to Hillary's Criminal Justice Reform site. I think it provides a clearer perspective of the reforms she's promoting than the efforts you appear to be suggesting here. I don't think anyone is entirely blaming policing for the current status of criminal justice in America, but there are some elements of policing, sentencing, and incarceration that do require some reform. No one, I think, is suggesting that a particular segment of our population should be treated leniently or any different from others; however, I do think body cameras and the prompt release of recorded footage would go a long way towards building the kind of trusts Mrs. Clinton appears to be promoting in her reform. I don't think this is about leniency or vilifying police, I think her effort is about assuring or supporting some measure of fairness and reform that will further trust between communities and police.

Isn't prison incarcerations, crime, and the KKK issues separate from Mrs. Clinton and her candidacy? Is there clearly anything about her candidacy that addresses or promotes these issues?

To the topic, Islam should receive no more criticism than any other religion. In other words, Islam should be granted the same measure of respect that other ideologies receive particularly when the extremist elements of other ideologies are essentially no different.

Yes, I look at the details of all that in comparison to Trump and decided which of the two most electable candidates would likely have my country and people's best interests uppermost in mind.

Perhaps not cornerstone but prominent among the ideas behind contentious legislation.

Although I believe Trump when he says he's not owned by special interests, I also believe that he does have strong undeclared allegiances to such groups given his past commentary and business acts. Given his past, the most powerful interests appear to have been his own. I'm not one who naively believe in what a politician claims he or she will do; however, to your point, Trump's Republican nomination is clearly convincing evidence of his persuasiveness. Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats generally do support programs that serve our citizenry who are in need. Starting with FDR's administration, some of those programs have become integral to our economy and the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. We help and support our own, which I believe is fair and proper for a wealthy nation such as ours.

In our Pledge of Allegiance, "...one nation, under God, indivisible.." and on our money, "In God We Trust", isn't religious ideology a cornerstone of our democracy? An ideology heavily influenced by Christianity? Granted, Christianity is not a political belief but it's ideology is frequently the focal of political debate and legislation.