Clinton 2016

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv7_w2_WgAEnVw0.jpg:medium

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

Well, if that's what you think, isn't then the solution to start thinking about how you can get a political class less inclined to be obsessed with re-election and maybe a bit more representative? What might help is fewer elections, and then elections in a way that Joe Sixpack with new ideas actually can get elected and afford to be elected. In the USA it seems very much that millionaires have a disproportionate chance of getting elected and be elected. Can you really effectively represent your voters if you get $174,000.- a year, are expected to live in DC but also have a house in your district, without being loaded to start with?

It smacks a bit of Roman democracy, where being in office could only be afforded by the richest citizens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Term limits is something that has often been suggested. We have it for the presidency why not for congress?

Ultimately even that won't solve the issue since it becomes a revolving door - serve time in congress than go on to be a lobbyist, run a campaign or a be part of a foundation. Power corrupts. The best way to get that corruption out is to minimize the discretionary funding of the government. Don't allow the possibility of pork barrel politics. Instill the idea that government is the last resort not the first resort to problems. Sadly that ship too has sailed as the current generation cares far more about economic security than liberty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

He's always been a long shot. Why do you think I was so pissed he won the Republican nomination?

That being said there is a reason there is a massive amount anti-establishment feeling. The establishment sucks. Everything is looked at in the lens of re-election. Stand for principal? Only if it can be spun correctly and help their electoral chances. EVERYTHING is about it. Until we actually get someone who will vow (and carry out) the goal of lowering the debt in absolute terms and fix the nanny state and entitlement spending time bombs we are foisting on future generations people should stay anti-establishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I think you misunderstood me. I am against term limits: a higher turnover of the same type of people is not going to achieve anything. Making elective office something even Joe Sixpack can afford to do is the solution. You created a system where only people with serious money can afford to attempt getting elected.

---

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 Loki

Yep, settling old scores more important than democracy.

---

Was it illegal for the FBI to release those documents? If it isn't illegal I'm not certain what you are crying about.

I'm glad you didn't try to defend the pardon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

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.

---

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.

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

Was it illegal for the FBI to release those documents? If it isn't illegal I'm not certain what you are crying about.

I'm glad you didn't try to defend the pardon.

---

Who knows, it may have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv7_w2_WgAEnVw0.jpg:medium

---

If_she_wasn't_corrupt_then_there'd_be_no_evidence_ found_and_the_circle_would_be_broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If_she_wasn't_corrupt_then_there'd_be_no_evidence_ found_and_the_circle_would_be_broken.

---

You're falling for the fallacy that every evidence leads to a breaking of the law.

No only evidence that laws have been broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

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.

---

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.

Looks like Clinton herself may have been behind the email leaks:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58...b08f9841acad73

:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

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 Lewkowski

Good deeds don't outweigh criminal negligence nor perjury.

---

Sounds very much like you're hyping yourself up for a vote for Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Sounds very much like you're hyping yourself up for a vote for Trump.

---

Nope - I'm voting for Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No only evidence that laws have been broken.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

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.

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.

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

"everyone knows they're guilty" is not how we do things in civilized countries.

---

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.

Is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? That's a political question with a political answer.

Would perjury fall under obstruction of justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

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.

---

Wait, "he"? I thought we were talking about something Hillary Clint was supposed to have done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Wait, "he"? I thought we were talking about something Hillary Clint was supposed to have done?

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Um, you're seriously blaming Hillary Clinton for Bill's pardoning choices?

---

Clinton's have always been a team. Are you seriously questioning that?

Right, so you credit Hillary with balancing the budget or record economic growth then?

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 Lewkowski

Nope - I'm voting for Johnson.

---

Can we laminate and frame this? Thank you in advance

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.