ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
I think the rub is that it's rightly believed gross negligence would have been found for anyone else (or at least not a high ranking politician) in the same situation. So, you're right that it wasn't as simple as her having the server was immediately a felony, but it's obviously against the law based on the rules 99.9999% of the population plays by

Which clump are you including Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and George W Bush in? (All had private email servers)
 
so now trump isn't being honest either?

Maybe some people just hate politicians period. Doesn't matter if we finally have one telling his mind or not.


Who said he was being dishonest? I know I stated that I am not sure he can be trusted. Because that is a legitimate question about him. Can Trump be trusted? I dunno. This guy smoozed with the Clintons.

What was it that turned Trump, who is a known smoozer with the Clintons, into the anti-Clintons? What exactly made that happened? Can someone explain that to me?
 
I think the rub is that it's rightly believed gross negligence would have been found for anyone else (or at least not a high ranking politician) in the same situation. So, you're right that it wasn't as simple as her having the server was immediately a felony, but it's obviously against the law based on the rules 99.9999% of the population plays by

Exactly. But equating it to traffic tickets is incorrect, and (at least from my experiences with family (in laws and mine) on Facebook) most people have no idea what intent is for criminal law or why it matters. Or they see intent to use a private server and say (indirectly) that intent is met for distributing to unauthorized people.
 
Which clump are you including Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and George W Bush in? (All had private email servers)

Not suprised you would misrepresent their private emails with hers.

Do some research and find out the differences, if you're able to use google (not sure you'd be able to figure it out)
 
Who said he was being dishonest? I know I stated that I am not sure he can be trusted. Because that is a legitimate question about him. Can Trump be trusted? I dunno. This guy smoozed with the Clintons.

What was it that turned Trump, who is a known smoozer with the Clintons, into the anti-Clintons? What exactly made that happened? Can someone explain that to me?

Trump already explained it. Don't confuse his honesty on the matter with the typical voters inability to understand it, or accept it.
 
Libertarians are more American than the Republicans in office, Libertarians are trustworthy, Republicans not so much. That's a ridiculous statement to compare dems to Libertarians. Absolutely wrong. Considering that Libertarians are waaaay more economically conservative than Republicans without letting Jesus Christ rule on social policy.

The election has taught just how awful both parties are. Awful. Piss poor awful.
Ditto. Republicans spend waaay to much themselves. For instance not like they aren't guilty of bailouts themselves. If anything libertarians are classical republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
They no intent excuse was garbage. Short of a recorded admission, every case needs circumstantial evidence to prove intent.

Some statutes are strictly liability: speeding, statutory rape, etc. This was not.

No one (i.e. FBI Director) is saying not to use circumstantial evidence of intent; they're saying the circumstantial evidence did not lead to intent (at least gross negligence) to distribute classified information to unauthorized users. Everyone agrees she intended to have email on a private server, and almost everyone would agree she intended (or was at least grossly negligent) to have CI emails through her private server. I know I'm parsing details, but that's the point. Reasonable people can say anyone else would have been found grossly negligent, and that's the only real argument (and I'm not arguing against that).
 
No one (i.e. FBI Director) is saying not to use circumstantial evidence of intent; they're saying the circumstantial evidence did not lead to intent (at least gross negligence) to distribute classified information to unauthorized users. Everyone agrees she intended to have email on a private server, and almost everyone would agree she intended (or was at least grossly negligent) to have CI emails through her private server. I know I'm parsing details, but that's the point. Reasonable people can say anyone else would have been found grossly negligent, and that's the only real argument (and I'm not arguing against that).

You're saying James Comey did or did not say something, but did you listen to any of James Comey's testimony on the matter?

He flat out rejected gross negligence as being the standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
Who said he was being dishonest? I know I stated that I am not sure he can be trusted. Because that is a legitimate question about him. Can Trump be trusted? I dunno. This guy smoozed with the Clintons.

What was it that turned Trump, who is a known smoozer with the Clintons, into the anti-Clintons? What exactly made that happened? Can someone explain that to me?
The presidential race?
 
Not sure I follow you S & C

Just saying he's already admitted to gaining the system because he could. He's already admitted he used the clintons, Bush's, numerous other politicians etc for personal gain. He's already said why he did it, and it wasn't for politically correct reasons. So why would he be lying or untrustworthy? He admits what the rest won't.

Sorry I'm not being clear I'm babysitting thirty 15 year olds this morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
Just saying he's already admitted to gaining the system because he could. He's already admitted he used the clintons, Bush's, numerous other politicians etc for personal gain. He's already said why he did it, and it wasn't for politically correct reasons. So why would he be lying or untrustworthy? He admits what the rest won't.

Sorry I'm not being clear I'm babysitting thirty 15 year olds this morning.

haha.

I see what you mean now about the dishonesty
 
Heisman, I don't care if a black person, a Tranny, or a Hermaphrodite is in the White House. What I do care is, letting some broad that is a KGB spy in the White House. I love America, Trump's wife is another AnnaChapman
GetFile.aspx




But I agree with Qwes. Big Russian fat fitties are a plus even if they are serving against America's best interests.

Melania: "Vlad, I valmost I have dem vere I vant dem. Get the Gulag veddy, honey, Vomma is coming vome"
What is wrong with that? I thought those on the left liked foreigners. Silly me. Oh and by the way, don't know who was arguing earlier about someone talking about looks being a reason to get voted into office but, it worked for Obama.
 
Just saying he's already admitted to gaining the system because he could. He's already admitted he used the clintons, Bush's, numerous other politicians etc for personal gain. He's already said why he did it, and it wasn't for politically correct reasons. So why would he be lying or untrustworthy? He admits what the rest won't.

Sorry I'm not being clear I'm babysitting thirty 15 year olds this morning.
Akoya_Damac_83.jpg
 
Big Blue, We got Trump because people are sick and tired of the shit going on with ALL politicians.
People are mad as hell with the state of the Union.
If Trump preaches jobs and safety he's going to win the Presidency. He's going to get a lot of middle class votes that usually vote democrat.
This is what most on the left do not understand. Blind allegiance is the only thing they know.
 
Not happy with that either bro. I generally think the world of Johnson, but that was pure bullshit.

I mean, if theyre not going to attack her for that; then why even have their hat in the ring? Its not like its slinging mud. It was an actual thing that actually happened.

No one (i.e. FBI Director) is saying not to use circumstantial evidence of intent; they're saying the circumstantial evidence did not lead to intent (at least gross negligence) to distribute classified information to unauthorized users. Everyone agrees she intended to have email on a private server, and almost everyone would agree she intended (or was at least grossly negligent) to have CI emails through her private server. I know I'm parsing details, but that's the point. Reasonable people can say anyone else would have been found grossly negligent, and that's the only real argument (and I'm not arguing against that).

The circumstantial evidence ALL pointed to intent. The lies. The coverup. The disregard of regulations. The refusal to comply with the investigation until she destroyed everything.

Was there even one piece of circumstantial evidence that pointed to a lack of intent on her part?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
I mean, if theyre not going to attack her for that; then why even have their hat in the ring? Its not like its slinging mud. It was an actual thing that actually happened.



The circumstantial evidence ALL pointed to intent. The lies. The coverup. The disregard of regulations. The refusal to comply with the investigation until she destroyed everything.

Was there even one piece of circumstantial evidence that pointed to a lack of intent on her part?

Exactly.
 
How do you know that Trump isn't doing that right now? We know Hillary is a lying sack of shit, but we honestly can't say that about Trump without using our heart to rationalize to a conclusion.

All it boils down to me is, can Trump be trusted not be a liberal?
I think Trumps VP pick of Pence shows he wont run a liberal administration. Mike Pence is a very good governor and I'm sure he wouldn't have joined Trumps ticket if Trump was spouting a left wing type of agenda during their meetings for VP. Who knows if Trump will be a great President, but based on his VP pick I don't see him going full lib tard.
 
Was the speech very similar? Absolutely. Was it plagiarism? No. Discussing hard work and trustworthiness are pretty general terms to discuss. It's not as if Michelle was the first to mention them.

Mrs Trump's speech is the very definition of plagiarism. You need to accept and get past that fact.

I don't care if her speech is word for word from the 2008 DNC. Fluffy convention speeches are just distractions. This is blown out of proportion.

If Trump's campaign continues to say they didn't plagiarize, then it may be an issue of dishonesty.

But the argument of "is it plagiarism" just doesn't matter.
 
I think Trumps VP pick of Pence shows he wont run a liberal administration. Mike Pence is a very good governor and I'm sure he wouldn't have joined Trumps ticket if Trump was spouting a left wing type of agenda during their meetings for VP. Who knows if Trump will be a great President, but based on his VP pick I don't see him going full lib tard.


Good point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screwduke
I guess I struggle with the people who say, I am not voting Trump because he may end up being a hard core left leaning liberal. I struggle because that may indeed be what he ends up being, but not voting for him guarantees you have a hard core left leaning liberal in the white house. I guess I am willing to throw my vote to the guy who may not do that, instead of conceding to the one who is exactly that.

Just my two cents
 
I guess I struggle with the people who say, I am not voting Trump because he may end up being a hard core left leaning liberal. I struggle because that may indeed be what he ends up being, but not voting for him guarantees you have a hard core left leaning liberal in the white house. I guess I am willing to throw my vote to the guy who may not do that, instead of conceding to the one who is exactly that.

Just my two cents

I'm hoping more people start to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhattyJ4UK
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT