The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Therein lies the point of the issue, the evidence against her has never been tried in court.

Loads of people like to scream and shout she "was cleared" or "was proven innocent", she was neither, the FBI/DOJ decided not to press charges, not pressing charges when evidence to question guilt is available does not equal innocence.

Correct.
Why do you think I have said -not- charging her was the best gift the FBI gave Trump?

We had something very similar here, there was an MP, Lord Janner, who was accused of child abuse, there was lots of evidence against him but the crown did not prosecute him because he was dying (and did die), to his fans that proved his innocence, but in reality all it proved was the crown decided not to persue charges, there's a massive difference between the two.

All it proves is that they are two different situations, and some people are idiots.

People want Clinton put on trial so the evidence can speak to her guilt or not, not be told no "we're not pressing charges because", as all that does is undermines the legal system in place.

No, what it ignores is having to prove your case before you get to trial. I could say "I think Ian-S is a rapist, and I need a trial to prove I am wrong", forget that I have no proof to even lay the charge, I made it, so you must now go through the legal process to prove yourself innocent.

Remember that, -PROVE YOU INNOCENT-, the very antithesis of the legal system, the assumption of guilt before proof.

At the very least the evidence is clear she lied under oath, it was bought up by the host in the debates, so she should be prosecuted for that anyway, let alone anything else (over here we call that perjury and iirc Jeffrey Archer got 7 years for it).

Then charge her for perjury!!!
I have utterly no issue with Hillary having to "pay for her sins", I am not a Hillary fan in the slightest, I don't like her really, I just found Trump to be more dangerous.

You'd probably find if she actually was put on trial and found innocent, people would either accept it, or claim the case was rigged, that seems too be a popular argument ATM for some reason, can't remember who started that trend.... Oh hang on lol

Oh hang on.............
Thus proving my point really.

[thekillman]

Correct.
Why do you think I have said -not- charging her was the best gift the FBI gave Trump?

It seems this is one of the reasons the FBI underlings are unhappy: By not charging her, they take the blame. Had they charged, the outcome would've been the DoJ's problem, but they made it theirs. They bit a bullet they didn't have to bite.

[Annoyed]

Oh for the love of god, she has been investigated MANY times, for MANY things, and no action. IF the only thing you will accept is her being charged and found guilty, then you do not understand how the law works. What will you say if someone takes her to court and she is found not guilty?
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

She has been investigated by a Democratic administration, bent upon shielding her from the accusations. No surprise that they haven't pressed charges. Let's see what happens when the Democrats don't control the investigation.

Pre Election: "the whole system is rigged, get out and watch to prevent rigging and I won't accept it if I loose"
Post Election: "it was a fair election, why are you complaining?"
As -soon- as trump faced any opposition, he made wild accusations of rigging.

Take note of the riots and protests. Which side isn't accepting the result of the election?
Were there riots in 2008 after the LSoS won?

[thekillman]

Take note of the riots and protests. Which side isn't accepting the result of the election?
Were there riots in 2008 after the LSoS won?

And you think that after repeated calls that the election was rigged, the republicans would've let this slide? Don't be naive, there would've been protests anyway.

Also 2008 did not see the two most unliked candidates in pretty much all of history.

[Gatefan1976]

And you think that after repeated calls that the election was rigged, the republicans would've let this slide? Don't be naive, there would've been protests anyway.

Also 2008 did not see the two most unliked candidates in pretty much all of history.

More importantly, the popular vote and the EC were aligned.

[Gatefan1976]

She has been investigated by a Democratic administration, bent upon shielding her from the accusations. No surprise that they haven't pressed charges. Let's see what happens when the Democrats don't control the investigation.

She had been investigated by republican lead investigators all the time.

Take note of the riots and protests. Which side isn't accepting the result of the election?
Were there riots in 2008 after the LSoS won?

In the streets? No.
In self deluded people who thought "look, racism is dead, we elected than non American muslim Afroboy"
yeah, just slightly.

[Falcon Horus]

Prosecuting Hillary was one of his campaign promises and it would be an easy one to keep.

I heard, he already dropped it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-victory

I bet you they are happy. Quite a boost when you're being attacked on all fronts.

I do ask myself. If Obama caused Trump...What will Trump cause?

The end of the world as we know it.

so what happened to the so-called "anti-establishment" president these fools were all banking on when they cast their ballots?

For a guy being so anti-establishment, there's plenty of establishment in his plans.

Clear it may be, but i am trying to see if he was being Serious about it.. Due to the Irony of it all, "Kill someone elected BY THE LAWS of the land to "restore democracy"..
That's like saying Kill a doctor to restore health to people..?!?!?

I think he most certainly was -- just not in a literal way.

Why is it that's the way these arguments always seem to go "YOu are bad, you want to deprive a woman of her choice"!! WAAAAAAAAAAAA...

But you are taking a woman's choice away. How can you not see that?
If you have trouble seeing how that is bad for the woman, I doubt anything anyone says on the matter is going to register on your harddrive.

And ON THIS subject, a gal in louisania (lafeyette) made a false claim she got assaulted and her hijab got stolen by 2 white guys wearing trump shirts.. She is thankfully being charged (but with only a misdemeanor false claim reporting)....

A false report is a misdemeanor -- and should come with a substantial fine.

It's sad this happened because it makes it harder for actual hate crimes to be believed.
However, she's but one of many incidents, and the others unfortunately are not made up for some reason or another.

Hang on.
You two want to compare having control of someone else's body, to them having a choice what happens to them?
If all you "hero males" actually gave a flying toss what happened to the women, you would not leave them to deal with the situation in the majority of times -by themselves-.
Do you know what.
IF you guys paid for the kid, from birth to actual independence, gave up your careers and made the 73c in the dollar that women do, changed ****ty bums, dealt with teachers, washed the clothes, bottles, arranged formula and all the HUNDREDS of other things that mothers have to deal with when it comes to infants, let alone the biological and hormonal changes women have to deal with pre and post pregnancy, then sure, I would say you get "equal say"
Until then, sit down and STFU.
My gender -disgraces- me sometimes.

Mic ... drop.

[SoulReaver]

For a guy being so anti-establishment, there's plenty of establishment in his plans.

the silence of his voters on this topic is deafening

btw you can add to the list something even bigger & badder than Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ublican-214260

the ultimate evil the Rockefellers themselves!



(and to think the Democretins were too stupid to point this out, they were too busy voicing their sympathy for the mexicans & other useless topics, their fault they lost)

[Annoyed]

But you are taking a woman's choice away. How can you not see that?
If you have trouble seeing how that is bad for the woman, I doubt anything anyone says on the matter is going to register on your harddrive.

No one is even proposing taking the woman (or man's) choice to keep her or his pants on away.

[Ian-S]

Correct.
Why do you think I have said -not- charging her was the best gift the FBI gave Trump?

All it proves is that they are two different situations, and some people are idiots.



No, what it ignores is having to prove your case before you get to trial. I could say "I think Ian-S is a rapist, and I need a trial to prove I am wrong", forget that I have no proof to even lay the charge, I made it, so you must now go through the legal process to prove yourself innocent.

Remember that, -PROVE YOU INNOCENT-, the very antithesis of the legal system, the assumption of guilt before proof.



Then charge her for perjury!!!
I have utterly no issue with Hillary having to "pay for her sins", I am not a Hillary fan in the slightest, I don't like her really, I just found Trump to be more dangerous.



Oh hang on.............
Thus proving my point really.

I think we're both saying the same thing but to the bolded part, this isn't what has happened with Hillary is it? If what is reported is correct there is evidence but it is not being tested, that's different to there being no evidence (as such for example every email being found to be personal or from long list Nigerian relatives).

Your example claim is baseless, a similar level of evidence would be if the victim produced a video of said incident, then the claim has foundation, then it is a case of proving the video is fake, or admitting the charge, the equivalent "Hillary" example is the authorities deciding not to press charges even though the video exists.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but IMHO this is what has happened with Hillary, the evidence is there but TPTB won't test it by filing the charges.

[Annoyed]

I'm not sure if that makes sense but IMHO this is what has happened with Hillary, the evidence is there but TPTB won't test it by filing the charges.

That's my take on this too; she is guilty, they have the evidence to back up charges, but the current (democratic) administration is more interested in shielding her from charges than prosecuting them. That will change come Jan. 20.

[SoulReaver]

if they won't indict Trump then it makes sense that they pardon her for her petty "crimes"

[Ian-S]

What would they indict Trump for?

[Falcon Horus]

I know, he's your hero and all, but he's forgetting the following 5 steps which he probably ins't even aware off:

5 reasons not to expect Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted

[SoulReaver]

What would they indict Trump for?

breaking the law

incidentally isn't the UK a police state?