https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv7_w2_WgAEnVw0.jpg:medium
Printable View
Yes, that seems to be the way it works. However Liberals have got a lot to answer for as well, because they started it by assuming every suspicion warrants an investigation of every situation right up till the point where you'd need mind reading gear to get to the next deeper level of information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The solution is NOT term limits. That solves nothing at all and creates new problems. I think 100% and exclusively publicly funded elections would go a long way toward fixing this problem, and lots of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Was it illegal for the FBI to release those documents? If it isn't illegal I'm not certain what you are crying about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm glad you didn't try to defend the pardon.
Violations of the 1st amendment to restrict political speech isn't a good plan. Furthermore it just changes how money is used unless you have some truly draconian laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I think we've already established that just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not wrong.
Remind me which office Bill Clinton is running for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Who knows, it may have been.
If_she_wasn't_corrupt_then_there'd_be_no_evidence_ found_and_the_circle_would_be_broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
You're falling for the fallacy that every evidence leads to a breaking of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No only evidence that laws have been broken.
The first big mistake was equating spending money with speech. The next big mistake was allowing unlimited and secret spending to influence elections. Assuming you want a functioning democracy, that is. If you don't, then, not mistakes. There is no problem at all with regulating how money is spent to influence elections. Everyone has an interest in protecting the nation's democracy. Except those who fear democracy will lessen their power. Then they don't care, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Looks like Clinton herself may have been behind the email leaks:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58...b08f9841acad73
:o
Good deeds don't outweigh criminal negligence nor perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sounds very much like you're hyping yourself up for a vote for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Nope - I'm voting for Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If I'm seen walking hurriedly away from the scene of a crime wearing a hoodie, that's evidence I was involved in that crime. It could just as easily have been explained by me happening to walk in that direction, walking quickly because I'm late and wearing a hoodie because it's cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The Republicans have been obsessively looking for dirt on the Clintons for over 30 years, and they've failed to come up with anything more concrete than Hillary walking away from the scene of a crime in a hoodie, figuratively speaking.
Are you serious? The senate didn't vote to convict but every single person knows that Clinton committed perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
"everyone knows they're guilty" is not how we do things in civilized countries.
If by "committed perjury" you actually mean "lawyered his way out" then I guess you might be correct.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...y_defense.html
Yeah and the jury voted pretty much along partisan lines... I mean seriously? Come on you don't actually think he was truly not guilty of perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? That's a political question with a political answer.
Would perjury fall under obstruction of justice?
Wait, "he"? I thought we were talking about something Hillary Clint was supposed to have done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You said Clintons... and frankly do you honestly think Hillary didn't know he was lying? Nonetheless we know that Hillary didn't follow protocol to secure classified documents. We know she allowed people without security clearance to have access to them (similar case with a high profile individual, Patreous), there is a metric SHIT TON of circumstantional evidence that pay to play was happening. If you want to go further back into Clinton scandals there is ample evidence that wrong doing occured, weather or not the Clinton's were part of it is up in the air but it seems awfully convenient that no one gave them up and then they had folks pardoned.... shocker there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitew..._investigation
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
Now look, I get it. You dislike Trump and want Clinton to win. That's fine. But to say that Clinton isn't corrupt and dirty? That's just silly. Stick with saying "Clinton may be corrupt but Trump is worse" or some other reasonable argument.
Um, you're seriously blaming Hillary Clinton for Bill's pardoning choices?
Clinton's have always been a team. Are you seriously questioning that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Right, so you credit Hillary with balancing the budget or record economic growth then?
Oh that was the Republican controlled congress don't you know? ;) (Or a little thing called the internet, ie digital revolution).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Can we laminate and frame this? Thank you in advanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Rather depressing and tragic that this time tomorrow Clinton will be President-elect to be the 45th POTUS and I still barely have a clue what she stands for other than "I'm not a deranged orange lunatic".
Hopefully she gets a landslide victory as that's enough to win, but what a waste of an election cycle that the GOP has thrown away.
I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but she has a very detailed policy platform. It's not her fault that you didn't take the time to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm not suggesting its her fault - or mine, I'm far more interested in politics than the average voter.
The media and the opposition haven't debated her platform at all. Normally in an election cycle the opposition tries to find flaws in your platform which is healthy as what makes it to election day after a trial by fire is usually more realistic and stronger than what could have gone through otherwise.
Thanks to Trump though Hillary's policy platform is basically walking through on a bye. I don't blame Hillary for that, I blamed the GOP. This is their fault not hers. The GOP has allowed a President to be essentially elected uncontested and unscrutinised (for policies not BS like emails or their Foundation). I never thought that would happen in my lifetime.
You're more interested in politics than the average voter, yet you blame the media for not informing you enough. Seems like you're just another average voter.
You could of course also have given an answer that wouldn't have made you look silly again. That answer would have been that since you aren't a voter, you never were really all that interested in Hillary's program as 99% of it doesn't affect you and that you focused on the Hillary vs the Big Orange Monster angle because that actually is the part that has some relevance to you. You not being an American voter and all.
For us non-yankees the only thing that counts is that the US has a halfway funtioning administration that doesn't trample on our rights too often. Whether or not that administration promotes tuition-free public education or abolishing government mandated health care insurance is totally unimportant for us. When we look at their elections our only rational interest is 'let's hope they don't vote some mad person in .
I'm not blaming the media for informing me. I didn't blame the media, I didn't blame Hillary. I blame the GOP for not challenging Hillary enough. If Hillary's program is good or bad for the economy does affect us across the pond as if America sneezes then Europe catches a cold.
What then is Hillary's position on the deficit, on taxes, on spending etc - and not just Hillary's version of what her position is, but challenged by her opponents to reveal the flaws and contradictions in her policies? Who knows as the GOP haven't performed a half decent opposition workup on her policies. It's not Hillary's job to challenge herself. It's not really the media's job either believe it or not. It was the GOP's job to do it and they have flunked that test royally.
I haven't taken the time to look at it either. It just didn't matter. Normally I go over them for both candidates but my vote was committed as soon as Rubio dropped out of the GOP nomination race.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Exactly in this cycle what difference does her platform make? Are you really going to vote for the orange lunatic because you dislike policy x? Of course not but that's not healthy as from January she will be more than just Not Trump. For the next four years she will be.
As if domestic USA politics is relevant to us as long as they don't fuck up completely. In the last decade the only times that potentially was the case was when Congress was fucking around with the debt ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I think you have an unreasonably high opinion of the scrutiny a candidate's policies get in a normal election. Pretty much every major candidate in recent memory has promised policies long on rhetoric and short on feasibility; they are rarely called out on it in a substantive way, and even when they are directly asked (about, for example, how the math doesn't add up) they generally pivot to stump rhetoric rather than addressing the issue. This is not unique to the current campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There's a difference, though, LF. RB was specifically lamenting that he has no clue what Clinton stands for other than not being Trump. It's not very hard to get a sense of her proposed policies even though they are unrealistic (as are all candidate platforms IMO). Trump, of course, doesn't appear to actually have any policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I think that if I pushed you, you could probably summarize some of her major positions on e.g. trade, minimum wage, childcare/family leave, foreign policy, prescription drug pricing, etc. These are all issues that have been covered extensively in the news. It's true that some aspects of her platform have received less coverage (e.g. energy), but any reasonably politically engaged person is aware of her basic policy positions. I agree that because all of those policy positions are more or less reasonable (or the unreasonable parts aren't politically achievable so who cares) and in the face of such a comically unsuitable opponent, there isn't a whole lot of detailed discussion about precisely how her tax plan will affect growth or the budget. It doesn't really mean you don't have a clue what her policies are.
You are naive. Of course the USA is highly relevant to us. The pond is not that wide in the 21st century.
Ditto. I spent more time looking at the websites of the people running for the Georgia Senate and House. Incidentally, that was a terrible mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy