Duckk said take Mrs Clinton\not in jail here.

Whilst I tend to agree WW, your cited example is perfectly fine.




Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

For the Hillary Haters:

When there were 4 candidates in the Democrat primary, she was my 4th choice. When it was down to Hillary and Sanders, she was still my 4th choice. Now I'm stuck with her or Jill Stein. Sometimes I wish was a conservative.

You guys got The Donald (R), Gary Johnson (I but also R)and Evan McMullin [another (R) running as another (I)]. McMullin is the real wild card. Nationally he'll poll lower than Stein, but he has a chance to add another color to the Electoral College Map. But I digress.

If Hillary violated laws, and she probably did, find evidence and get the proper law enforcement to investigate and file charges. All the Hearings by the Gang of 39 (you Socrates geeks here know who they were)is nothing more than political theater, three rings of entertainment (farce)to distract the plebes.

Its original purpose was to derail any possible chance that she would run for president. We're beyond that now. The only reason to continue the farce in the House of Representatives is to attempt to destroy her ability to govern. Scorched Earth Policy rev. 2. Rev 1 was the Birther Movement. That went over well.

You agree that she violated the laws....probably. You agree that the proper course is to find evidence and prosecute. So far conservative me and liberal you see eye to eye.

Here is where we may differ. I believe that the inability to turn the evidence we do have into a prosecutor's case has everything to do with politics. She has sufficient pull to avoid just prosecution. Not necessarily conviction, but prosecution. Whether she can be found guilty or not is not the real issue. She can avoid prosecution even though she is probably guilty of violating the law.

That worries me much more than her disagreeable politics. I would have voted for Sanders because even though his politics were even more disagreeable to me, he does not represent the elitism and above the law mentality of Hillary and the other GOP or Dem Elites like the Bushes. Notice how they circle the wagons against someone who threatens their cushy place in the center of political power?

For anyone that believes Hillary is either guilty or even may be guilty of crimes, voting for her as she uses political influence to avoid prosecution is tacit acknowledgement that the Elites are entitled to use political influence to ascend above the laws that govern everyone else. I simply cannot do that. I will not and will fight the establishment of the Elites ability to facilitate that. I would rather vote for Trump, whom I find distasteful in the extreme, than vote for Elites to be able to avoid being prosecuted for crimes. I've already said I would vote for an honest socialist before voting to make Elites above the law.

WeirdlyWired wrote:For the Hillary Haters:

When there were 4 candidates in the Democrat primary, she was my 4th choice. When it was down to Hillary and Sanders, she was still my 4th choice. Now I'm stuck with her or Jill Stein. Sometimes I wish was a conservative.

You guys got The Donald (R), Gary Johnson (I but also R)and Evan McMullin [another (R) running as another (I)]. McMullin is the real wild card. Nationally he'll poll lower than Stein, but he has a chance to add another color to the Electoral College Map. But I digress.

If Hillary violated laws, and she probably did, find evidence and get the proper law enforcement to investigate and file charges. All the Hearings by the Gang of 39 (you Socrates geeks here know who they were)is nothing more than political theater, three rings of entertainment (farce)to distract the plebes.

Its original purpose was to derail any possible chance that she would run for president. We're beyond that now. The only reason to continue the farce in the House of Representatives is to attempt to destroy her ability to govern. Scorched Earth Policy rev. 2. Rev 1 was the Birther Movement. That went over well.

PeterZ wrote:For anyone that believes Hillary is either guilty or even may be guilty of crimes, voting for her as she uses political influence to avoid prosecution is tacit acknowledgement that the Elites are entitled to use political influence to ascend above the laws that govern everyone else. I simply cannot do that. I will not and will fight the establishment of the Elites ability to facilitate that. I would rather vote for Trump, whom I find distasteful in the extreme, than vote for Elites to be able to avoid being prosecuted for crimes. I've already said I would vote for an honest socialist before voting to make Elites above the law.

You know everything you said actually makes perfect sense... until anyone tacks onto the end of it that they are therefore supporting Trump rather than a third party. Trump... who is guilty of everything you just listed to an order of magnitude greater degree and has on multiple occasions openly bragged about it... and then is a racist sexual predating bigot on top of it. And for the cherry on the top of that shit sandwich... he's also an idiot, ignorant of everything to do with the job he is running for, and incompetent even within his own claimed area of expertise (business)... surviving only because of inherited wealth and being propped up by some competent people who work for him who allow him to survive his continued repeated blunders. He has no self control whatsoever, no ability to admit error, he has all the maturity and self discipline of your average temper tantrum throwing 3 year old.


And his supporters want to put him in charge of the most powerful nation on earth and see what happens.

No, some of his supporters know that he does not have enough control of existing checks and balances for him to succeed in elevating himself above the law. He cannot evade frivolous laws suits, let alone criminal prosecution. I agree that he wants to do that, that he wants to be like Hillary, to be above the law. He simply doesn't have the connections yet to do that. There are enough of those willing to vote for him that will cheerfully back his prosecution if sufficient evidence presents itself.

He is a wanabe without the established network to pull off his desire to be above the law. Clinton has proven she is quite capable of pulling that off. All the qualities you cite for his being the less qualified candidate supports my view that Trump simply cannot coalesce the kind of network to secure a prosecution proof level of organized corruption that Hillary has proven she already has in place.

I would vote for Third party, but they have no chance at all. As clueless as Johnson is in foreign policy, he is a better choice by far than either Hillary or Trump. I had hoped that the Trump campaign would have been smart enough to insist on including the Third Parties in the debates. He didn't. One more disappointment I have to accustom myself to living with. There will undoubtedly be many more regardless of who wins the election.

Gcomeau, we disagree on this, I know. You believe that Hillary's corruption is a better alternative to Trump's lack of perceived competence. I believe Hillary's corruption is paramount in my refusal to vote in any way to increase her chances of winning, including voting for my preference. We can use Trump's incompetence to re-establish effective checks and balances on the Executive branch. Clinton's systemic corruption will castrate any potential attempt to establish those checks and balances.

Again, I simply will not do anything to support the establishment of that sort of Elite control of our political system. It may be too late already, but I will not vote in any way to strengthen such control.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:For anyone that believes Hillary is either guilty or even may be guilty of crimes, voting for her as she uses political influence to avoid prosecution is tacit acknowledgement that the Elites are entitled to use political influence to ascend above the laws that govern everyone else. I simply cannot do that. I will not and will fight the establishment of the Elites ability to facilitate that. I would rather vote for Trump, whom I find distasteful in the extreme, than vote for Elites to be able to avoid being prosecuted for crimes. I've already said I would vote for an honest socialist before voting to make Elites above the law.

You know everything you said actually makes perfect sense... until anyone tacks onto the end of it that they are therefore supporting Trump rather than a third party. Trump... who is guilty of everything you just listed to an order of magnitude greater degree and has on multiple occasions openly bragged about it... and then is a racist sexual predating bigot on top of it. And for the cherry on the top of that shit sandwich... he's also an idiot, ignorant of everything to do with the job he is running for, and incompetent even within his own claimed area of expertise (business)... surviving only because of inherited wealth and being propped up by some competent people who work for him who allow him to survive his continued repeated blunders. He has no self control whatsoever, no ability to admit error, he has all the maturity and self discipline of your average temper tantrum throwing 3 year old.


And his supporters want to put him in charge of the most powerful nation on earth and see what happens.

PeterZ wrote:Again, I simply will not do anything to support the establishment of that sort of Elite control of our political system. It may be too late already, but I will not vote in any way to strengthen such control.

Hang on, so you're voting for Trump because you believe he is not part of the Elite while counting on the Elite to hold him in check?

PeterZ wrote:You agree that she violated the laws....probably. You agree that the proper course is to find evidence and prosecute. So far conservative me and liberal you see eye to eye.

Here is where we may differ. I believe that the inability to turn the evidence we do have into a prosecutor's case has everything to do with politics. She has sufficient pull to avoid just prosecution. Not necessarily conviction, but prosecution. Whether she can be found guilty or not is not the real issue. She can avoid prosecution even though she is probably guilty of violating the law.

.

Sorry, Being found guilty is exactly the issue. At least for The US Legal System. It may be different in Australia, Britain, wherever others on these forums are from.

I believe OJ did it, Nixon did it. He** everybody knows BILL did it. None of them were convicted. Everybody may know Hillary did it. I will say again Any lawyer knows where the law is. A very smart lawyer knows where the law is not. Doesn't take power, or money, or elite connections to skirt the law, it takes a very smart lawyer, and the funds to hire one as an advisor.

Trump bragged on tape that his "Celebrity Status" is enough to prevent him from being prosecuted for sexual assault (not rape). he doesn't need to be an elite operating on the level of the Clintons. His fame as The Donald and the reality stardom is sufficient.

Although he has claimed that his wealth far exceeds theirs. That alone puts him in with all the elites, with all the connections, and the ability to hire Very Smart Lawyers.

PeterZ wrote: For anyone that believes Hillary is either guilty or even may be guilty of crimes, voting for her as she uses political influence to avoid prosecution is tacit acknowledgement that the Elites are entitled to use political influence to ascend above the laws that govern everyone else. I simply cannot do that. I will not and will fight the establishment of the Elites ability to facilitate that. I would rather vote for Trump, whom I find distasteful in the extreme, than vote for Elites to be able to avoid being prosecuted for crimes. I've already said I would vote for an honest socialist before voting to make Elites above the law.

Here, hopefully is where reasonable people can reasonably disagree. The Elites of the Fundamentalist Christian Community have no problem holding their noses and urging their congregations support Trump. If they can swallow their higher moral values than I, a mere Liberal, can ever hope to aspire to for the sake of greater principles like Supreme Court Justices willing to overturn Roe v wade, Griswold v Connecticut, etc. , Then I can swallow yours for the same but opposite principles.

at back when Casino Gambling was legalized in LA, I went to school to become a Black jack dealer.[How many times can you count to 21 700 times an hour before you are bored totally out of your skull?/] We had a "surveillance system set up over one table just like in the real casino. we got to watch ourselves on tape making all manner of mistakes that students make. To make matters worse, some of the pit bosses were playing against us forcing our errors.

The upshot was not to never make mistakes but to recognize them and call them to the attention of the floor supervisor. It was beaten into our heads to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

No matter what else HRC may be guilty of, she definitely is guilty of the appearance of impropriety. Then she compounds the error by lawyering up, circling the wagons and deploying the "Cone of Silence" (Sorry 86). Exactly the wrong moves when the very best move is transparency.

You miss the point. Hillary avoids the question of guilt by avoiding prosecution. The Justice department has leeway in which case it can bring to trial. The system has far less leeway I how to execute a trial once a trial has begun. Hillary uses her influence to avoid prosecution and any potential conviction.

That's my problem with her. She buys and sells influence to rig the system in her favor and is VERY good at it. So good that she has you believing that as long as her influence keeps her from being prosecuted, she is not guilty of anything serious. So long as that is true, you will hold your nose and vote for her before you taint your sensibilities and vote for the vilified Trump. Hillary hopes to be elected and continue this game of hers. It will be working after all.

All of this is establishing her being above the law. After her all her elite friends will share in her elevation. I simply will not vote to support this.

WeirdlyWired wrote:

PeterZ wrote:You agree that she violated the laws....probably. You agree that the proper course is to find evidence and prosecute. So far conservative me and liberal you see eye to eye.

Here is where we may differ. I believe that the inability to turn the evidence we do have into a prosecutor's case has everything to do with politics. She has sufficient pull to avoid just prosecution. Not necessarily conviction, but prosecution. Whether she can be found guilty or not is not the real issue. She can avoid prosecution even though she is probably guilty of violating the law.

.

Sorry, Being found guilty is exactly the issue. At least for The US Legal System. It may be different in Australia, Britain, wherever others on these forums are from.

I believe OJ did it, Nixon did it. He** everybody knows BILL did it. None of them were convicted. Everybody may know Hillary did it. I will say again Any lawyer knows where the law is. A very smart lawyer knows where the law is not. Doesn't take power, or money, or elite connections to skirt the law, it takes a very smart lawyer, and the funds to hire one as an advisor.

Trump bragged on tape that his "Celebrity Status" is enough to prevent him from being prosecuted for sexual assault (not rape). he doesn't need to be an elite operating on the level of the Clintons. His fame as The Donald and the reality stardom is sufficient.

Although he has claimed that his wealth far exceeds theirs. That alone puts him in with all the elites, with all the connections, and the ability to hire Very Smart Lawyers.