a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Who do you vote into the office of USA President?

  • Total voters
    48
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
Interesting thought experiment - what happens if Clinton is indicted at various stages between now and inauguration:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/her...if-hillary-clinton-is-indicted-or-steps-down/

One thing I didn't know is that it's fairly settled that a president cannot be impeached for offenses they committed before stepping into office. So if she is not convicted by the time she enters office, she pretty much is immune from any further repercussions of her past actions. She can, of course, then protect her friends and family from any further prosecution or trials.

One nice thing about this election is that it's really brought out the corner cases and shed a lot of light, for me, on the presidential seat.
Click to expand...
Same for Trump, then.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Trump says he's gonna make America great again, but then outsources BS website jobs to another country despite the out of work troll website makers who need jobs right here in the USA!
 
Null

Null



The legal papers on Trump's child rape lawsuit.

It's really graphic and disturbing, and shows that he coerced a 13 year old into performing sexual acts by threatening harm to herself and her entire family.

But, no, go on and keep saying that mishandling emails is even close to the same thing.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Null said:
But, no, go on and keep saying that mishandling emails is even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...
GasBandit said:
She's done a liiiiiittle bit more than "poor email server management."
Click to expand...
But there's the exact double standard I was talking about. The accusation is enough to damn Trump, but Clinton gets a pass on 30 years of thinly veiled malfeasance because she's "never been convicted."
 
Null

Null

Not convicted, not indicted, not even fucking charged, [you wonderful human, you]. If they can't even find anything to charge her with, then assuming she's guilty of "something" is absurd.

On the other hand, this is a case where the statute of limitations for criminal charges has passed, so the only option was civil court. The case has been fought for and fought for and fought for against Trump's repeated attempts to have it dismissed, and despite all that, it's been found to have enough merit that he will be going to court for it next month.

Do you see a little fucking bit of a difference there?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
But there's the exact double standard I was talking about. The accusation is enough to damn Trump, but Clinton gets a pass on 30 years of thinly veiled malfeasance because she's "never been convicted."
Click to expand...
A lot of the treating Trump as a sex offender, is how he treats Bill as the abuser of women, and how Hillary is a bad person because she helped with Bill's Bimbo Eruptions. Don has the exact same situation as Bill, election year scandals of he said/she said. And he is being more vicious against these women than Hillary ever was against Bill's accusers.

If the GOP can treat Bill as a rapist (and actually use those words) then they can not treat Donald as anything else.
 
strawman

strawman

Denbrought said:
Short essay by Bethany Mandel, Why Isn’t The Media Pouncing On Mormon Hatred Like It Has Jew Hatred?
Click to expand...
Two additional thoughts:

The mormons were usually well received in areas they moved to until they moved in such great numbers that they became powerful politically. Nauvoo, Illinois could have become the state capital and this worried those who worked hard to kick the mormons out.

I suspect that one reason members of the LDS church are allowed to be treated this way in today's culture versus Jewish people is that Jewish people were treated poorly as a race rather than religiously. If you didn't have the distinctive features and name, you escaped a lot of harm, even if you practiced the associated religion. However, many who didn't practice or were willing to give up Judaism were still persecuted due to their heritage and ancestry, and not their religion. So for many people the racism is the issue, they aren't interested in protecting religious freedom.
 
Last edited:
blotsfan

blotsfan

While it isn't right to flat out hate all mormons, the mormon church is an organized entity in a way that Jews are not (unless you read Breitbart). That is why it is easier and more fair to lump them together.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Null said:
Not convicted, not indicted, not even fucking charged, motherfucker. If they can't even find anything to charge her with, then assuming she's guilty of "something" is absurd.

On the other hand, this is a case where the statute of limitations for criminal charges has passed, so the only option was civil court. The case has been fought for and fought for and fought for against Trump's repeated attempts to have it dismissed, and despite all that, it's been found to have enough merit that he will be going to court for it next month.

Do you see a little fucking bit of a difference there?
Click to expand...
Enough merit? Go to court? Are we reading about the same case? It's a status conference, discovery hasn't even begun. The time before that it was an indigent lawsuit, and was dismissed because pro se plaintiffs are bad at filing. The second time (this third one is a re-filing, if I've read correctly) they didn't notify the defendants.

Here's some decent reading:
The Facts About A Couple of Pending Lawsuits Against Donald Trump
Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven’t The Media Covered It?
Trump Rape Accusers Turn On Each Other
Trump’s Teen Jane Doe Rape Accuser Disappears Again

Anyone can sue anyone else for anything in the U.S. Unless you're marked as a vexatious litigant, you have a right to sue me for licking your nuts non-consensually. Insisting that this happened two decades ago, and thus you have to do it through civil, does not make me any more of a nut-licker, pending evidence and testimony at trial (after, y'know, discovery is done and standing is confirmed). Not that it would reach trial, in all likelihood, since early dismissals are a thing.

Also I would've been like 5, and I think that means you're the one in trouble.
 
Krisken

Krisken

I'm ok with protecting religious freedoms so long as it doesn't impede someone else's freedom. Unfortunately a lot of religions tend to confuse this.
 
strawman

strawman

Do you mean as long as it doesn't affect anyone else at all, or can we balance the two freedoms when they come into conflict?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Two additional thoughts:

The mormons were usually well received in areas they moved to until they moved in such great numbers that they became powerful politically. Nauvoo, Illinois could have become the state capital and this worried those who worked hard to kick the mormons out.

I suspect that one reason members of the LDS church are allowed to be treated this way in today's culture versus Jewish people is that Jewish people were treated poorly as a race rather than religiously. If you didn't have the distinctive features and name, you escaped a lot of harm, even if you practiced the associated religion. However, many who didn't practice or were willing to give up Judaism were still persecuted due to their heritage and ancestry, and not their religion. So for many people the racism is the issue, they aren't interested in protecting religious freedom.
Click to expand...
I'd argue part of it is also the whole "Mormons are Christians, but only when we want them to be" attitude that a lot of religious people have, which really cuts both ways with the LDS. On the one hand, religious conservatives will rally behind the LDS when it's about something they care about, calling them brothers publicly, while at the same distancing themselves from the LDS the moment any of the differences come to light. Jews get this too ("Oh, we worship the same god but in different ways! Welcome friends!") but to a lesser extent.
 
strawman

strawman

Yep. Most governments maintain a similar set of key legal principles that include "no rights are absolute" as well as "there is no hierarchy of rights".

Of course this cuts both ways - religious rights aren't absolute, nor above any other right, but they aren't below any other right either.
 
Krisken

Krisken

For me where the line is starts when prejudice is disguised as religious freedom. There shouldn't be conflict in these areas if people follow the teachings of the prophets they claim to revere.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Null said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-fbi-clinton-emails_us_581c9e3fe4b0e80b02c93d6b?

Rudy Giuliani confirms that the FBI has been leaking info on the Clinton investigation to the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised this isn't getting more traction. The FBI is violating the Hatch Act and leaking sensitive information to Trump. And the information being leaked? Questions about *Clintons* mishandling of information.

Is this real life?

Also saw this great quote from Reddit

FBI, KGB and KKK are trying to elect the same candidate. What a bizarre fucking election.
Click to expand...
[DOUBLEPOST=1478285156,1478284966]
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Null said:
Not convicted, not indicted, not even fucking charged, [you wonderful human, you]. If they can't even find anything to charge her with, then assuming she's guilty of "something" is absurd.
Click to expand...
Destruction of evidence is a wonderful thing, ain't it?

On the other hand, this is a case where the statute of limitations for criminal charges has passed, so the only option was civil court. The case has been fought for and fought for and fought for against Trump's repeated attempts to have it dismissed, and despite all that, it's been found to have enough merit that he will be going to court for it next month.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Trump, I'm calling attention to the blinkered, sycophantic, willful ignorance that causes the attempted defense of Clinton. But see also: Denbrought's post.

Do you see a little fucking bit of a difference there?
Click to expand...
No, and you shouldn't either.

sixpackshaker said:
A lot of the treating Trump as a sex offender, is how he treats Bill as the abuser of women, and how Hillary is a bad person because she helped with Bill's Bimbo Eruptions. Don has the exact same situation as Bill, election year scandals of he said/she said. And he is being more vicious against these women than Hillary ever was against Bill's accusers.

If the GOP can treat Bill as a rapist (and actually use those words) then they can not treat Donald as anything else.
Click to expand...
Burn em all, IMO.[DOUBLEPOST=1478293308,1478293210][/DOUBLEPOST]I gotta say though, storming out of this thread in a huff 5 hours ago has turned this into my most productive friday by far. I might get to leave early.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top