Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
The electorate is certainly not over it. Thanks to Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch's staggering incompetence, no matter what the FBI recommends, Trump will make this an issue from now to election day.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think Trump wouldn't have just made up some other nonsense about the corrupt system? That's half his schtick.

Fudbucker said:
I argued with Tony Stark that only a fringe group would glom onto a conspiracy theory of "the fix being in". After watching the coverage this weekend, Tony is obviously right: there will be a significant chunk of voters who will believe that Clinton is above the law, and not all of these people will be die-hard Trump supporters. It will be even worse if the FBI is as harshly critical of her as the State Dept.'s Inspector General, which, barring an indictment, they will likely be.
Click to expand...
The Clinton Lynch tryst won't change that in the least.

Fudbucker said:
For Trump to be beating Clinton on the issue of honesty and trustworthiness in multiple non-Right Wing major polls (CNN, Quinnipiac) is shocking, at this stage.
Click to expand...
Yawn. Those polls are not likely to be predictive. Look at the history of POTUS polls this far out from the election.
 
Garrison said:
Let's not forget Trumps morally dubious statements about his own daughter. it's the same double standard we've seen right through the candidate threads. Trump is on trial but Clinton's the 'crook'. Bill's philandering is unforgiveable, Trump's barely acknowledged.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about Trump's sex life or Bill's. I don't care if Hillary is straight or a lesbian. I don't care if Bill and Hillary sleep with each other regularly or never. I don't care if any of them are Christians or atheists.

I do however care about hypocrisy and double standards. I care about misogyny and demeaning remarks about women. I do care about how they treat other human beings especially publicly but would hope that they treat others well in both settings.

Trump's public persona is not one I'd want my children to emulate. They say he's better in private. But why does that matter to me, a person who only sees the public image that Trump puts forth?

What happened to the so called "values voters" in the Republican party. Does Trump act or speak like someone with your values?

I consider my vote to be precious, I could never give it to a man of Trump's character. NEVER.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
After going over this 100 times on this forum you still post as though you never read the counter arguments once. Or at the very least you obviously don't understand it.

When you can't even show you understand what the other side is saying you have zero hope of your garbage arguments convincing anyone.

But keep repeating this over and over. I'm sure it will get the people planning to vote 3rd party to change their minds and vote for Clinton.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing that the counter arguments are crap. You also seem to be personalizing this with patented sophistry. I'd say, by evidence of your emotional override, that the tactic is working. Your argument seems to be "why don't you just shut up?"

Supposed liberals and supposed progressives and even supposed moderates who don't realize what's at stake and think that a write-in vote for Bernadette Dohrn, or a symbolic vote for Stein or Johnson is going to achieve something are delusional.

If only there wasn't Florida/2000, that sort of hipster vote [I'm so cool I'm voting for this person with no chance to win] might seem merely symbolic. It's not symbolic. It's real. Arguably we got eight years of Dubya/Cheney because a 269 people believed "aw, my vote won't make a difference - the system is rigged, anyway".
 
Foolmewunz said:
If only there wasn't Florida/2000, that sort of hipster vote [I'm so cool I'm voting for this person with no chance to win] might seem merely symbolic. It's not symbolic. It's real. Arguably we got eight years of Dubya/Cheney because a 269 people believed "aw, my vote won't make a difference - the system is rigged, anyway".
Click to expand...

No, we got them because an unelected SCOTUS gave it to them by stopping a complete recount of the state, which independent research shows actually elected Gore despite all the voter-roll purging and other election irregularities.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
All the more reason we need Clinton to become POTUS, SCOTUS depends on it.
Click to expand...

We need Clinton to be elected POTUS. Ginsburg is 82, Breyer is almost 78 both Bill's apointees. Kennedy although a Reagan appointee is a swing vote, he's 79. What amazes me is that George H.W. Bush's appointees are 10 to 15 years younger than Clinton's appointees. To get the court to be more moderate, HRC must be elected.
 
acbytesla said:
We need Clinton to be elected POTUS. Ginsburg is 82, Breyer is almost 78 both Bill's apointees. Kennedy although a Reagan appointee is a swing vote, he's 79. What amazes me is that George H.W. Bush's appointees are 10 to 15 years younger than Clinton's appointees. To get the court to be more moderate, HRC must be elected.
Click to expand...

More moderate doesn't mean better legal scholarship.

That is what I want. The best legal minds with no left-right ideology mucking up decisions.
 
BobTheCoward said:
More moderate doesn't mean better legal scholarship.

That is what I want. The best legal minds with no left-right ideology mucking up decisions.
Click to expand...

What does "best" mean in this context? I remember a movie where a shyster was described as "best".... "He Could Find a Loophole in the Ten Commandments".

I don't think anyone would argue that Scalia or Thomas isn't a top legal mind. Nor Bork, for that matter. You seem to be saying that their disputed interpretations of the intent of the founding fathers, with no flexibility for adjustments in society, is preferred? Not in my household.
 
BobTheCoward said:
More moderate doesn't mean better legal scholarship.

That is what I want. The best legal minds with no left-right ideology mucking up decisions.
Click to expand...

There are some very good liberal legal scholars, but like it or not, some of these issues offer a lot of legal gray areas. For example, it isn't exactly in the Constitution that a corporation is a person. And while the right of privacy is not written specifically in the Constitution, it sure is implied by the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments. I want a court that is interested in protecting voting rights instead of those trying to disenfranchise voters. One a little more interested in the rights of every day citizens instead of the rich and powerful. For the first time in a long time I was actually proud of SCOTUS when they ruled against Texas's sham laws designed to subvert Roe v Wade.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Right, right wing justices = legally correct, left leaning judges = legislating from the bench. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I keep expecting some learned reactionary [RIP Scalia] to argue that the 13th didn't sufficiently address the 3/5 agreement, so henceforth black voters will only get counted as .6 of a "real" vote. It was, after all, "the intent of the framers", hallowed be their name.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yeah, I keep expecting some learned reactionary [RIP Scalia] to argue that the 13th didn't sufficiently address the 3/5 agreement, so henceforth black voters will only get counted as .6 of a "real" vote. It was, after all, "the intent of the framers", hallowed be their name.
Click to expand...

What I really liked about Scalia and his strict constructionist interpretations is that he ignored the 9th Amendment as if it wasn't in the Bill of Rights.
 
Darat said:
Unfortunately the USA system seems to encourage partisanship in the selection of judges.
Click to expand...

It has been since day 1. Read up about the events that lead up to Marbury v Madison which from the Supreme Court view has to be the most important case in US history.
 
Fudbucker said:
I saw the Wikileaks teaser. Some of my friends downloaded the insurance file. That was a week ago. I'm losing patience. What are they waiting for?
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
They don't actually have anything. Derp
Click to expand...

And ... nailed it.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286444-wikileaks-publishes-clinton-war-emails

WikiLeaks on Monday published more than 1,000 emails from Hillary Clinton's private server during her time as secretary of State about the Iraq War.
The website tweeted a link to 1,258 emails that Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee sent and received. They stem from a trove of emails released by State Department in February.
 
acbytesla said:
Really? When the President and the administration presented a false case to Congress and the Senate? Also you are wrong. Clinton didn't vote for the war. The authorization was to allow the President to make war under specific conditions. Conditions based on a fraud.
Click to expand...

Really? Because I have read the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for and the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for did not require that Bush come back to Congress once "conditions" had been satisfied. No, the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for had no such condition. Plus lots of people did not vote for the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for.

Why was Hillary so stupid?
 
16.5 said:
Really? Because I have read the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for and the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for did not require that Bush come back to Congress once "conditions" had been satisfied. No, the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for had no such condition. Plus lots of people did not vote for the Iraq war resolution that Hillary voted for.

Why was Hillary so stupid?
Click to expand...

You convinced me. I won't vote for Clinton in the general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom