It overlaps heavily with "dad jokes". Although I sometimes have been using it to point out to people that they are doing something they have done repeatedly to the point of irritation.
a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
The Russia comment was to show how stupid the association with foreign governments thing is. Hillary has been accused of this but no quid pro quo has ever been shown to have happened. Just like Trump being accused of being a Russian puppet. He may have acted sometimes exactly like Russia would like him to, that makes him gullible and easy to manipulate, not a willing puppet in their mechanations.
Innocent until proven guilty is indeed pertinent to all of this. Bill's never been convicted of anything, even after the masses of rabid right-wing loonies beat themselves and everyone around them up trying to find something - ANYTHING - that would stick. So his non-conviction blunts the criticisms and makes the rest of that argument nothing more than trying to convict through public opinion. And we all know how reliable that is. It's why you've never heard me talk about Trump's upcoming trials about fraud or child rape. Innocent until proven guilty.
And being a terrible person to others is not something we disqualify people from office for. Nixon was a dick, but he was fit to be president. Hillary is a bitch, but she's qualified.
But claims of those things should be supportable with evidence, otherwise it is just name-calling.
Dave
Staff member
Changed it back. I see your point.
Now it's "that'" thing, not "the" thing. Think of all the bad jokes we can't make anymore about the Marvel character!
I was expecting a comment about me objecting to my own wording.
Dave
Staff member
Fixed.
Nah. Sometimes a good idea is only good in the hypothetical stage. Once you see it it doesn't look as good.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, pretty much by your standard then, everybody's qualified for everything, and nobody who wasn't convicted ever did anything wrong.
Just because the Clintons were not convicted doesn't mean they didn't do it - it often means their name and connections shielded them from the consequences.
John Gotti was innocent then, for decades, until suddenly he wasn't.
Well, we are talking about the position of Libertarian Candidate. Everybody is qualified for that.
Dave
Staff member
Pretty much. You're qualified until someone proves you to be otherwise. It's amazing to me that you don't hold the same high regard for the rule of law. I thought you had contempt for the court of public opinion. Or is it just when they agree with you? (Only slightly being snarky here. You seem to brush off libertarian foibles with great relish.)
GasBandit
Staff member
Remember, I prefaced my statement with in a working system.
IE, one which didn't have blanket immunity for all Clintons (and Bushes, and Kennedies, and...)
Now kiss.
And now we know @Denbrought's thing
I appreciate the "Bill has never been convicted of anything" line that's cropped up twice in the last two pages.
He admitted he lied under oath. As president he can't be tried in a criminal court, he has to be impeached. His attorney made the closing statement something to the effect of, "If the power of the presidency isn't harmed by this lie, then you must acquit" Subsequently he was acquitted and thus didn't suffer impeachment.
He did lie under oath.
He wasn't "convicted" (not the correct term, but whatever).
So the statements made over the last two pages are the best kind of correct - technically correct.
Also, terminally stupid, and it's what many in the american public are complaining about - sure, Hillary isn't technically criminal for her actions regarding the email (along with a whole slew of other sleazy things she has done and continues to do).
Technically.
But the Clintons share something in common - they were wrong to do these actions, and just because the law is unable to pin them down doesn't absolve them of the fact that they should have operated differently, and instead chose to pursue a darker path, and worked hard to make sure they escaped without harm to themselves - others around them, not so much.
So yes.
"Technically" Hillary is an upstanding person who is technically a reasonable choice to hold the reigns* to the USA.
Technically.
*word choice intentional.
He admitted he lied under oath. As president he can't be tried in a criminal court, he has to be impeached. His attorney made the closing statement something to the effect of, "If the power of the presidency isn't harmed by this lie, then you must acquit" Subsequently he was acquitted and thus didn't suffer impeachment.
He did lie under oath.
He wasn't "convicted" (not the correct term, but whatever).
So the statements made over the last two pages are the best kind of correct - technically correct.
Also, terminally stupid, and it's what many in the american public are complaining about - sure, Hillary isn't technically criminal for her actions regarding the email (along with a whole slew of other sleazy things she has done and continues to do).
Technically.
But the Clintons share something in common - they were wrong to do these actions, and just because the law is unable to pin them down doesn't absolve them of the fact that they should have operated differently, and instead chose to pursue a darker path, and worked hard to make sure they escaped without harm to themselves - others around them, not so much.
So yes.
"Technically" Hillary is an upstanding person who is technically a reasonable choice to hold the reigns* to the USA.
Technically.
*word choice intentional.
It's not his minimum standards. It's the minimum standards. Born in the USA, not convicted of most serious stuff, over...errr, 35? years of age.
He's not claiming she's a good candidate - but she passes the minimum requirements. And among the main contenders for the title, she's easily the most qualified. Johnson, Stein, Trump and McMullin all fall far short of her experience and/or have other, equally serious issues.
I understand not liking HRC. Heck, I don't like her, and Dave doesn't, either, last I heard. Defending Trump because HRC's just as bad is just misguided, though. He's worse in literally every possible way - and I mean literally literally.
GasBandit
Staff member
Johnson has actual executive branch experience - he was governor of New Mexico from 95 to 2003. You already know what I think about Hillary's senate seat being a bribe.
I understand what's being argued, and I'm arguing something different - I'm whining that she's not even remotely a good candidate, that the best defense supporters have is that she's not a convicted criminal.
That she may be the best this field has to offer is terrible.
To be fair, none of the candidates seem to be good. Oregon is one of the few states that accepts write-ins of any kind and I am (thoughtfully) considering writing in a candidate, which I have never done before. Not everyone gets the same choice as I do (other states limit them to candidates running in one or more other states, and some accept no write-ins at all).
Convicted kiddie fiddlers with a penchant for burning down orphanages can be President, AFAIK.
Dave
Staff member
I'm still a Bernie supporter and can't wait for him to push the liberal agenda in the Senate. But the path to that starts with Hillary. If she becomes president and the Senate flips, Bernie will wield a lot of power and push the platforms I believe in. It's about the long game and being realistic.
You can only rage against the storm for so long before you have to figure out how to ride the wind to get to your destination.
Ah. Loss of civil rights is a common part of the heavier sentences over here - Willy Claes (former secretary-General of NATO) famously had to give back his mandate as city councilor following a corruption conviction. Usually civil rights (to vote, hold office, etc) are withdrawn for 5 or 10 years for "big" crimes that don't come with jail time. Kiddie cuddlers would probably end up in jail and be therefor un-electable.
GasBandit
Staff member
Here, it varies state by state.
https://exoffenders.net/felon-voting-rights/
(Since the actual voting is the responsibility of the state governments, not the federal).
But where the presidency is concerned, as a federal office, running doesn't have that limitation.
Dave
Staff member
Well, in most states if you are convicted of a felony you lose the right to vote, to own a gun, and to be on a jury. I'd like to think that holding public office would go along with that, but we did have Marion Berry.[DOUBLEPOST=1477941731,1477941714][/DOUBLEPOST]SNIPED BY GAS!!
Same goes in Spain, though some pushback is happening, as people realize it might be better to have the public determine who should hold public office, rather than the (not wholly impartial) courts.