• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Instead of answering, he pretends to not understand the question. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Waiting for Indictot—A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

The play opens on an internet cafe of two caffeinated millennials: the pseudo-philosophical Vladimir and the conspiracy-weary Estragon who cannot remove the AC adapter from his much abused Mac Portable.

Estragon—There’s nothing for it. I must go.
Vladimir— I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, be analytical, look at the evidence. But no, no, no! Not I! I resumed the struggle.
Estragon: We’ve lost our rights!
Vladimir: Quiet you! Listen.
Barrista: Godot? Half double decaffeinated half-caf, with a twist of lemon. Godot?
Estragon: It’s nothing.
Vladimir: I thought it Comey.
Estragon: Who?
Vladimir: Indictot.
Estragon: Pah. The wind on the reeds.

repeat ad nauseum
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Even Scalia who claimed to be a strict originalist had politically influenced rulings.

I think you are being disingenuous with yourself. And avoiding my questions reinforces that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't appoint scalia.

Your question makes no sense to me. I don't care about specific rulings if I trust the process.

Even though I lean heavily to originalist, that is likely not the dominant philosophy and they would all be off the table.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I am listening, you don't get it.

Tell me, how would a non-left, non-right justice rule on Roe V Wade? How would they rule on the ACA challenges?
Click to expand...

I figured I would take another shot at these two questions . The answer is the same for both.


I don't know and I don't care.
 
RobRoy said:
I suspect, except for this strange SCOTUS argument that's cropped up, it will be rather quiet on this thread today from the True BelieversTM.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that. Has the issuance of the non-report from the Benghazi hearings silenced them. The FBI position on the server will have the same effect. Zero. Zip. Nada. Rien.

They're on a crusade.

No, I think the real problem is the originality quotient of the HDSers is about zero. They're waiting to hear the right wing spin.


eta: but we all know that spin.... Trump was trying it out over the holiday weekend. "The fix is in, Bill bribed or coerced Lynch, Obama already warned everyone that he'd cut them off of food stamps or audit their taxes if they didn't roll over and play dead."
 
Last edited:
Let's be clear. The FBI, who had access to all the information recommended no criminal charges. The self proclaimed investigators and prosecutors here are simply oozing their HDS germs if they disagree with the FBI.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Why would you think that. Has the issuance of the non-report from the Benghazi hearings silenced them. The FBI position on the server will have the same effect. Zero. Zip. Nada. Rien.

They're on a crusade.
Click to expand...

Oh, I could easily be wrong. We might see some lively discussion here today, but it seems that the last, best hope for any kind of roadblock that would stop Hillary and thwart her ambition was this “email scandal”. The hope was so great, that many were willing to put money on it, despite the evidence. The blow from the recent Benghazi-report has become standard fare, so most of the more reasonable have let that one go. At the very least, this being July, the likelihood of something coming up in the next few weeks that would keep Hillary from the nomination has evaporated.

No doubt, they will return within the 24-hour news cycle with, as you say, the right wing spin. But I think we’ll see some quiet reflection in comparison with the previous rampant key-mashings.
 
DavidJames said:
It will be interesting to hear what Sanders says. Does he go public with criticism and tear the party apart?
Click to expand...

His position has been pretty clear about the emails from the start. He said it's a non-issue and everyone should move on. In addition, he's said he would likely vote for Clinton, and at the very least would do everything he could to stop Trump from being elected.

Is there a reason why you think he would change that now?
 
RobRoy said:
His position has been pretty clear about the emails from the start. He said it's a non-issue and everyone should move on. In addition, he's said he would likely vote for Clinton, and at the very least would do everything he could to stop Trump from being elected.

Is there a reason why you think he would change that now?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but it depends out how desperate he is to make an impact at the convention. He could easily raise the "careless" issue, using the FBI's own words. Let's face, his supporters have mimic'd Trump's / Republican's complaints about her all along. Is it outrageous to think he would as well? Maybe.
 
DavidJames said:
Not necessarily, but it depends out how desperate he is to make an impact at the convention. He could easily raise the "careless" issue, using the FBI's own words. Let's face, his supporters have mimic'd Trump's / Republican's complaints about her all along. Is it outrageous to think he would as well? Maybe.
Click to expand...

In general, yes, because while some of his supporters may be NeverHillary at any cost, he isn't. For the most part, he's a reasonable and intelligent man, who isn't going to see Trump in office if he can help it. He might be looking for leverage, but he won't at the expense of giving the election to Trump.
 
DavidJames said:
Let's be clear. The FBI, who had access to all the information recommended no criminal charges. The self proclaimed investigators and prosecutors here are simply oozing their HDS germs if they disagree with the FBI.
Click to expand...

Yep. I am getting a real laugh out of the comments I am seeing of "I can't believe the FBI didn't charge her with something!!!!!"

Armchair feds, apparently. They are suddenly experts in law enforcement and can see criminal activity when the FBI can't.
 
DavidJames said:
Let's be clear. The FBI, who had access to all the information recommended no criminal charges. The self proclaimed investigators and prosecutors here are simply oozing their HDS germs if they disagree with the FBI.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. But I certainly expect the Hillary haters to move to strategy #2: "the FBI was controlled by the evil Democratic administration to produce a false report," and/or strategy #3: "the FBI was denied the facts by the evil Democratic administration." There are more strategies ready if these are somehow discredited, but the bottom line is clear- "I know in my heart of hearts that Hillary is guilty and any investigation that finds otherwise must be corrupt and/or faulty." Interesting that the Hillary haters don't seem to understand how much they have preformed this conclusion and refuse to alter it in the face of the actual facts. It may become a new religion with enough time- based on hatred of a eventually long-deceased politician rather than worship of an immortal deity. They could hold ceremonies involving spitted on a "Hillary host."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom