• Hillary Clinton Email Probe Is Part Of A Criminal Investigation, Admits Justice Department — Revelat
    112 replies, posted
Because they think have the election sealed by way of female and minority voters, who have in fact voted for Clinton in historical numbers so far. They don't give a shit that Sanders is ethically scrupulous to a fault, they want to win, same as Trump, this has rather little to do with reform or policy tort and everything to do with controlling interest in a continuing system of making the trains run on time at a profit for everyone involved, both politically and monetarily.
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50257594]Know this, if the FBI does not bring this to court or the charges do not stick, Trump will use this against her. I watched a few documentaries about him. He has a habit of digging up dirt on his opposition and using it to get his way. Doesn't matter if it is a slum project resident or a business competitor. He will launch his own investigation, he will sue her and use his media manipulation skill to get the press to repeat the message "Clinton is a crook" over and over again. It will be all you will see on the air. The man is also aggression incarnate. Why the democratic party want her go against him, and throw away the election. I have no clue why.[/QUOTE] To be fair, a lot of politicians will dig up dirt and try to kill the other's reputations, or take a stance on the weaker points of their opponent's campaigns. Trump's just the one that would go all out in demonizing them.
it would be really funny to me if she does win the presidency and then gets arrested. i'd never stop laughing at the people that voted for her because "its time for a female president". those idiots would be the reason the first female president also got arrested lol
[QUOTE=RikohZX;50257835]To be fair, a lot of politicians will dig up dirt and try to kill the other's reputations, or take a stance on the weaker points of their opponent's campaigns. Trump's just the one that would go all out in demonizing them.[/QUOTE] His own party tried to dig dirt on Sanders. They didn't exactly succeed. Trump woud not either. He would make up shit, but then that would work against him. [QUOTE]They don't give a shit that Sanders is ethically scrupulous to a faul[/QUOTE] It not about him being moral. Its about wining and taking chances. Sanders would seem to be the better gamble.
[QUOTE=Tinter;50256844]As far as I understand, accepting a pardon would be admitting guilt. You can't get pardoned for something if you didn't do it. So it would mean she probably wouldn't face any punishment, but she would still be a criminal.[/QUOTE] Not really. Nixon wasn't even indicted for his crimes, but Ford pardoned him for any crimes he [I]may[/I] have committed during his presidency. This means that he is unindictable for anything from 1969-1974. This does not make you a criminal, except in the public's eyes. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50258124]His own party tried to dig dirt on Sanders. They didn't exactly succeed. Trump woud not either. He would make up shit, but then that would work against him. It not about him being moral. Its about wining and taking chances. Sanders would seem to be the better gamble.[/QUOTE] Sanders is his own argument against himself. It's not hard to convince conservatives that a [I]literal socialist[/I] would be bad for the country.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258149]It's not hard to convince conservatives that a [I]literal socialist[/I] would be bad for the country.[/QUOTE] man, I really wish people would look at his actual ideals and actions rather than his lables. Us versus them mentality is really what's fucking this country imo.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50258283]man, I really wish people would look at his actual ideals and actions rather than his lables. Us versus them mentality is really what's fucking this country imo.[/QUOTE] This is why I say tribalism is racism. Seriously, I figured this out around 2010. This is why both sides need to go. [QUOTE]Sanders is his own argument against himself. It's not hard to convince conservatives that a literal socialist would be bad for the country. [/QUOTE] You have difficulty understanding swing voters, it seems. I like him because he wants to enact finance reform, fix the infrastructure, keep us out of dumb ass wars, is consistent and remove the surveillance apparatus. I really do not care if he is socialist.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50256106]Today's been a really politically important day. This might end up in a Sanders vs Trump situation.[/QUOTE] I'd accept Sanders on the November ballot on a technicality. I honestly feel he would already have clinched the nomination anyway if the elections were run fairly, that he deserves the shot at the white house. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;50256233]The best she could do if she got indicted would be a plea deal.[/QUOTE] Or make a couple phone calls. She has connections. She could ensure she got off pretty much scot free even if it was airtight. It might burn her political reputation but she'd avoid being a felon.
As far as I recall, presidential pardons are voided if one becomes president, meaning if she was actually elected she could be impeached basically the moment she was in office.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50259183]I'd accept Sanders on the November ballot on a technicality. [B]I honestly feel he would already have clinched the nomination anyway if the elections were run fairly[/B], that he deserves the shot at the white house. [/QUOTE] Even if every district that had screw-ups had supported Sanders 100% he couldn't have recouped the lead Clinton had on him. That is also forgoing the fact that a lot of those districts were places Clinton was projected to win anyway.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50259378]Even if every district that had screw-ups had supported Sanders 100% he couldn't have recouped the lead Clinton had on him. That is also forgoing the fact that a lot of those districts were places Clinton was projected to win anyway.[/QUOTE] Closed primaries ignoring the largest bloc of the voting population (independents).
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50259378]Even if every district that had screw-ups had supported Sanders 100% he couldn't have recouped the lead Clinton had on him. That is also forgoing the fact that a lot of those districts were places Clinton was projected to win anyway.[/QUOTE] What state are you talking about? Sounds like you're just makinh up numbers
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259705]What state are you talking about? Sounds like you're just makinh up numbers[/QUOTE] Off the top of my head, New York? The only state that had districts close to supporting Sanders were in Arizona, who's electoral fuck-up was big enough to warrant investigation. Otherwise it's just conspiratorial straw-grabbing from Bernie bros desperately trying to concoct reasons for why Clinton is leading and choosing a theory that hurts her more than it hurts him; that she is preventing people from voting for her in states she won by a landslide anyway.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259705]What state are you talking about? Sounds like you're just makinh up numbers[/QUOTE] Have you considered the fact that maybe there are Democratic primary voters who genuinely support Hilary over Bernie and they outnumber Bernie supporters in many states?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50259371]As far as I recall, presidential pardons are voided if one becomes president, meaning if she was actually elected she could be impeached basically the moment she was in office.[/QUOTE] They can impreach her even without having a crime, impeachment is just the vote to start the investigation.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258149] Sanders is his own argument against himself. It's not hard to convince conservatives that a [I]literal socialist[/I] would be bad for the country.[/QUOTE] How do you not understand the difference between Social Democracy and Socialism?
[QUOTE=Tobin;50259803]How do you not understand the difference between Social Democracy and Socialism?[/QUOTE] I understand the difference, sure, but most voters dont, and especially since sanders has described himself as a democratic socialist, it doesn't really matter
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50259761]Have you considered the fact that maybe there are Democratic primary voters who genuinely support Hilary over Bernie and they outnumber Bernie supporters in many states?[/QUOTE] It's weird, because I ask people and they can't give any reason to support Hillary other than "She can win!"
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50259761]Have you considered the fact that maybe there are Democratic primary voters who genuinely support Hilary over Bernie and they outnumber Bernie supporters in many states?[/QUOTE] Oh i know very well about the uninformed voters, why do you ask?
[QUOTE=Reshy;50259824]It's weird, because I ask people and they can't give any reason to support Hillary other than "She can win!"[/QUOTE] Foreign policy expertise is one I've heard.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259838]Oh i know very well about the uninformed voters, why do you ask?[/QUOTE] lmao uninformed voter is Bernie-bro-speak for "black people" [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Durandal;50259843]Foreign policy expertise is one I've heard.[/QUOTE] Foreign policy is basically the only reason I have difficulty supporting Hillary. I try to bring it up to people who use that argument - she's in favor of encouraging coups of democratically-elected governments that don't cater to US interests, she's very pro-military, she's very very hawkish. Her foreign policy is the most conservative thing about her - it's almost on par with Trump. Her domestic policy is preferable to Trump's, though. She's awful on foreign policy - "experience" in making poor foreign policy decisions should be a negative, not a positive.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50259866]Foreign policy is basically the only reason I have difficulty supporting Hillary. I try to bring it up to people who use that argument - she's in favor of encouraging coups of democratically-elected governments that don't cater to US interests, she's very pro-military, she's very very hawkish. Her foreign policy is the most conservative thing about her - it's almost on par with Trump. Her domestic policy is preferable to Trump's, though. She's awful on foreign policy - "experience" in making poor foreign policy decisions should be a negative, not a positive.[/QUOTE] She said all this?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50259866]Foreign policy is basically the only reason I have difficulty supporting Hillary. I try to bring it up to people who use that argument - she's in favor of encouraging coups of democratically-elected governments that don't cater to US interests, she's very pro-military, she's very very hawkish. Her foreign policy is the most conservative thing about her - it's almost on par with Trump. Her domestic policy is preferable to Trump's, though. She's awful on foreign policy - "experience" in making poor foreign policy decisions should be a negative, not a positive.[/QUOTE] I know, I don't like her foreign policy either but some people do and cite it as a reason they're for Hillary and not Sanders, since he kind of has a reputation of knowing anything about foreign policy.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50259872]She said all this?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled[/url] Here's the Coup that was mentioned.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50259846]lmao uninformed voter is Bernie-bro-speak for "black people"[/QUOTE]"I don't think very many people actually pay much attention to the nuances of politics." "Why do you hate black people so much?" Fucking [i]really?[/i]
So what's the odd of Hillary being indicted before November 8?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50259720]Off the top of my head, New York? The only state that had districts close to supporting Sanders were in Arizona, who's electoral fuck-up was big enough to warrant investigation. Otherwise it's just conspiratorial straw-grabbing from Bernie bros desperately trying to concoct reasons for why Clinton is leading and choosing a theory that hurts her more than it hurts him; that she is preventing people from voting for her in states she won by a landslide anyway.[/QUOTE] It's genuinely sad that Clinton's manufactured rhetoric "Bernie Bros" is actually being used unironically by people online. Congratulations for playing into the ridiculous propaganda machine and making sure that Clinton's millions of dollars funneled into PACs whose sole purpose is to discredit Sanders through online subversion don't go to waste.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50259720]Off the top of my head, New York? The only state that had districts close to supporting Sanders were in Arizona, who's electoral fuck-up was big enough to warrant investigation. Otherwise it's just conspiratorial straw-grabbing from Bernie bros desperately trying to concoct reasons for why Clinton is leading and choosing a theory that hurts her more than it hurts him; that she is preventing people from voting for her in states she won by a landslide anyway.[/QUOTE] The big cities are what really matters electoral wise. Illinois is only a big blue state because of Chicago and Cook County. Outside of that, it's a pretty Republican place. [editline]4th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Chaitin;50259976]So what's the odd of Hillary being indicted before November 8?[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume low since it takes a long time to get a solid battle tank of a case ready for the onslaught that Clinton will have to battle it. And that battle itself is going to take probably even longer. So basically don't count on it.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50260032]The big cities are what really matters electoral wise. Illinois is only a big blue state because of Chicago and Cook County. Outside of that, it's a pretty Republican place. [/QUOTE] Same with New York City/New York, which has such a big pull that it fucks over everyone else who would like reasonable gun laws.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.