The Easiest Election In History

[rocketman]

It's been a long and grueling election season, seemingly one that started even before the last midterms. There's been some high drama, some tough primaries, some genuine courage (http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/transcript-ted-cruz-convention-speech), and some terrifying indications of Russian intentions. But finally, we're left with a binary choice. And while many will be understandably disappointed with the choices that we have, I think that there is really only one moral, reasonable, defensible choice to make, and it's the clearest choice we've had in a long time.

On one hand, we have a candidate who touts his prowess at business as his main selling point, but who we know has lost over a billion dollars in a year. He vilifies the disempowered and the vulnerable. He courts racists. He blatantly judges women on their looks first, last, and only, and now we know he is a serial sexual assailant, on the basis of both his words and accusations of many women. He is the entitled child of privilege, he contributes nothing of value to society, a braggard who thinks he knows better than everyone else with absolutely no basis in reality, despite being manifestly unable to even speak coherently on the subjects he claims to be an expert in, who shirks all responsibilities he might hold to others, including debts owed to people with the misfortune to have done business with him, and he seems to share a mutual respect for dictators and despots such as the president of Russia, who is rightly viewed by most of the world as a pariah.

On the other side of the aisle, we have a candidate with long experience in government, a track record of advocating for the downtrodden, and widespread respect. She isn't a perfect candidate by any means. She definitely lacks some of the natural rhetorical instincts of her opponent. She prefers secrecy to openness, learned from decades of very public scrutiny. But the bottom line is that she is a decent person, and her candidacy has been downright inspiring since it hit its stride. And the bottom line is that some extremely well-funded efforts have failed to find anything seriously questionable in her past. The worst conspiracy theory against Clinton isn't half as bad as what Trump openly says and does.

So, the election breaks down very simply. All the horrible people in the country, the white nationalists and neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates, the "mens rights" activists, the people who think the hardest thing to be in this country is a white, male, Christian, the Deplorables and their whole basket, will vote for Trump. The decent folks will vote for Clinton. And the profoundly confused and indecisive will vote third-party or some other nullity. Because this isn't an ordinary election. This is a stark choice between the dominance of the entitled white male, and an open, welcoming, all-embracing society. It isn't enough that Trump loses, as looks almost inevitable now. He must be trounced and humiliated. He must be made an example, so that in the future, no one will even consider nominating a candidate like him. Because if we don't move the country past this white self-victimology, we will continue to wallow in it until it destroys us. We can't continue ignoring sexual violence and intimidation, we can't continue to ignore the systemic violence and discrimination against especially black people, and we can't continue to vilify the poor while we make every excuse for the rich, if not because the ignorance is immoral, then at least because demographic shifts won't permit it much longer.

Long winded attempt to paint the felon Hillary as anything more than a corrupt lying criminal that uses political position for profit and to run their family criminal enterprise's. Epic fail! Just like she & Bill are, hopefully both will be held to account, and if not jailed at least out of the political limelight to live out their pitiful existences in shame.

 

[rexlunae]

Do you believe I support the Duck for president?

No. You seem to be opposed to the guy, from what I've seen here. I'm just clarifying what I was saying, since you asked.

 

[rexlunae]

Long winded attempt to paint the felon Hillary as anything more than a corrupt lying criminal that uses political position for profit and to run their family criminal enterprise's.

It's been pointed out to you several times that "felon" is a term only applied post-conviction. I know you won't accept that, but it has to be said that your description is unhinged, inaccurate, and unfair.

Epic fail! Just like she & Bill are, hopefully both will be held to account, and if not jailed at least out of the political limelight to live out their pitiful existences in shame.

I think the Clintons have 4-8 years of political life left in them, tops.

And for the record, it's not my position in this thread that Hillary is anything like an ideal candidate. I'm not excited for her to win, by any means. But as her opponent flirts with the Russian dictator, advocates war crimes, says horrible things about everyone and everything that opposes him, demonstrates time and again how unqualified he is***, demonstrates that he has a real problem with women and all sorts of other people, I'll be exceptionally relieved when and if Hillary buries that troll in a pile of votes.


*** You can't be President if you can be baited by a Tweet. It's absolutely disqualifying.

 

[ok doser]

It's been pointed out to you several times that "felon" is a term only applied post-conviction.

ummmm - no

maybe this will help you:

felon noun A person who has committed a felony.

felony noun A crime regarded in the US and many other judicial systems as more serious than a misdemeanour.

a felony is a crime

a felon is a person who has committed that crime

nothing about post-conviction

 

[ok doser]

It's been pointed out to you several times that "felon" is a term only applied post-conviction. I know you won't accept that, but it has to be said that your description is unhinged, inaccurate, and unfair.

rex- consider the following:

1. I walk off this evening with the library's computer while nobody's looking, without the approval of the library.
Am I a thief?

2. I take the computer and bash the student who's been playing rap all evening over the head and he dies.
Am I a murderer?

 

[Angel4Truth]

ummmm - no

Innocent untill proven guilty, so untill shes convicted...

 

[ok doser]

Innocent untill proven guilty, so untill shes convicted...

:doh: she's already been found guilty of violating the terms of the statute

 

[Angel4Truth]

rex- consider the following:

1. I walk off this evening with the library's computer while nobody's looking, without the approval of the library.
Am I a thief?

No, you could be carrying to a person who came to pick it up for repair, so untill youre judged guilty by a jury of your peers, you are innocent of theft.

2. I take the computer and bash the student who's been playing rap all evening over the head and he dies.
Am I a murderer?

Perhaps he was trying to kill you and it was self defense, so untill you are judged guilty by a jury of your peers, you are innocent of murder.

 

[Angel4Truth]

:doh: she's already been found guilty of violating the terms of the statute

She went to court when?

 

[ok doser]

No, you could be carrying to a person who came to pick it up for repair, so untill youre judged guilty by a jury of your peers, you are innocent of theft.



Perhaps he was trying to kill you and it was self defense, so untill you are judged guilty by a jury of your peers, you are innocent of murder.

my, you're in one of your moods tonite, aren't you? :darwinsm:

 

[Angel4Truth]

my, you're in one of your moods tonite, aren't you? :darwinsm:

Are you *in a mood* when you present alternate scenarios to make a point?

 

[ok doser]

She went to court when?

she admitted it

it's not in dispute

18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires. 18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this. 18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked. 18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control. Yes, Hillary broke the law. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7177/fbi-yes-queen-hillary-broke-law-no-she-wont-be-ben-shapiro#

 

[Angel4Truth]

she admitted it

it's not in dispute

18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires. 18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this. 18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked. 18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control. Yes, Hillary broke the law. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7177/fbi-yes-queen-hillary-broke-law-no-she-wont-be-ben-shapiro#

While i believe she broke the law also, she still in this country has the right to be judged by a jury of her peers, and that has not happened, yet, but hopefully will soon.

 

[rocketman]

It's been pointed out to you several times that "felon" is a term only applied post-conviction. I know you won't accept that, but it has to be said that your description is unhinged, inaccurate, and unfair.

It has also been pointed out several times in retort that your (and TH's) position on the term "felon" and it's application is your ( and TH's) personal preference and not a hard & fast rule given other notable attorney's & law scholars use it to describe the felon Hillary as well. My description matches the definition and yours is just an emotional plea otherwise.

I think the Clintons have 4-8 years of political life left in them, tops.

And for the record, it's not my position in this thread that Hillary is anything like an ideal candidate. I'm not excited for her to win, by any means. But as her opponent flirts with the Russian dictator, advocates war crimes, says horrible things about everyone and everything that opposes him, demonstrates time and again how unqualified he is***, demonstrates that he has a real problem with women and all sorts of other people, I'll be exceptionally relieved when and if Hillary buries that troll in a pile of votes.

Absolute nonsense...you really need to get off the CNBC & CNN to get your news, the world infamous hacker Kim Dotcom is the most likely candidate and has an axe to grind with this administration not Putin. Even if it was the Russians which is just a talking point not an indisputable fact, what has been unearthed concerning the outright corruption & criminal behavior the DNC and, this candidate walk in should give any American pause. If you dislike corruption, criminality, and being lied to repeatedly than the last person any law abiding citizen would cast is for the queen of corruption the felon Hillary. In the end Trump is no prize but, he is not a felon that is currently under federal investigation now is he? You are a liberal so you don't even care about the law and, will vote for the felon Hillary anyway won't you?

 

[rocketman]

While i believe she broke the law also, she still in this country has the right to be judged by a jury of her peers, and that has not happened, yet, but hopefully will soon.

Hope springs eternal...:thumb:

 

[rocketman]

Innocent untill proven guilty, so untill shes convicted...

So was OJ but, we all knew he was guilty as hell too. :juggle:

 

[Angel4Truth]

So was OJ but, we all knew he was guilty as hell too. :juggle:

yes, but its better to be able to be tried, then convicted without one.

 

[rexlunae]

So was OJ but, we all knew he was guilty as hell too. :juggle:

And in the eyes of the law, he wasn't a felon because of the allegations against him regarding killing his wife. He's a felon because he committed armed robbery and kidnapping, and was convicted.

 

[rexlunae]

It has also been pointed out several times in retort that your (and TH's) position on the term "felon" and it's application is your ( and TH's) personal preference and not a hard & fast rule given other notable attorney's & law scholars use it to describe the felon Hillary as well. My description matches the definition and yours is just an emotional plea otherwise.

Who? Judge Jeanine Pirro? Judge Andrew Napolitano?

You know those people are paid to rev you up, right?

Absolute nonsense...you really need to get off the CNBC & CNN to get your news,

You continue to be bad at guessing where I get my news.

... the world infamous hacker Kim Dotcom is the most likely candidate and has an axe to grind with this administration not Putin.

Kim Dotcom? Where do you get that?

Even if it was the Russians which is just a talking point not an indisputable fact,

I didn't say it was an indisputable fact. There just happen to be a few worrying coincidences, starting with some of the comments that both Trump and Putin have made. And Putin certainly seems to have taken an interest. Why does it seem like RT has devoted so much effort to bringing down Hillary Clinton? How did Trump end up with Paul Manafort running his campaign?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

what has been unearthed concerning the outright corruption & criminal behavior the DNC and, this candidate walk in should give any American pause. If you dislike corruption, criminality, and being lied to repeatedly than the last person any law abiding citizen would cast is for the queen of corruption the felon Hillary.

There's been a huge effort to dig up something, anything on Clinton for the past 3 decades. And while it's true that a few things have floated to the surface that are suggestive, it's not much. And it's mostly bad judgement.

Trump....I just fear for what he could mean to this country. I fear that we really could end up losing our freedom, our democracy, or constitution. I doubt his loyalties. I've never had cause to doubt Clinton's, seriously.

In the end Trump is no prize but, he is not a felon that is currently under federal investigation now is he? You are a liberal so you don't even care about the law and, will vote for the felon Hillary anyway won't you?

Hillary has never been indicted, let alone convicted. Neither has Trump. We'll see how long that holds and for whom it changes first. I'm not sure if he's actually a criminal, but I'm really glad I'm not in business with him. I'm glad I never decided to go to his fake University. I'm glad I've never been personally involved with him on any level, especially if I had been a woman.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/eric-schneiderman-trump-university-fraud-223812

I think most people agree that neither candidate is great. But I still don't understand voting for Trump.

 

[rexlunae]

We now have a Presidential candidate who has been grounded from social media like a child. Which suits his behavior.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-aides-took-away-candidates-twitter-access

Think about that for a moment and weep for the state of our democracy.

What was the excuse Melania gave for Trump's "locker room talk" in the bus with Billy Bush? That he was like a teenage boy? There seems to be a pattern, acknowledged by the people closest to him. Trump is the king of the man-children.