Hillary Sucks.

[BraveUlysses]

18 U.S. Code § 2071



This holds a candidate ineligible for president IF convicted and that's the caveat.

Of course it requires a conviction, which is why I asked you to clarify. She's still eligible, unfortunately.

[GG///M3]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marshallnoise]

That's hilarious. But it isn't real, is it?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[GG///M3]

That's hilarious. But it isn't real, is it?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Not sure, but it's awesome either way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dozyproductions]

Of course it requires a conviction, which is why I asked you to clarify. She's still eligible, unfortunately.

Got ya. On a similar note, I hate our justice system! :hitler:

[GG///M3]

She should be in jail just like anyone else would be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djjerme]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that we are comparing someone who has devoted her life to political work as opposed to a private citizen

This is what gets me every time.

May not be in the circle you run with, but for me - many of the people around me who are now fully supporting Hillary are the same people who just a year ago were complaining about career politicians and how we need to get them out of office. They wanted to rid the system of them entirely and have an outsider elected for the President.

Like I said, your results may vary, but those here who have flip flopped like this truly have shown how much they are just swayed by the whole group think mentality. They are more worried about being thought of as an outside or non-conformist then to take a chance and get some real change done.

They are so worried about the threat of being called a racist or anti-feminist or anti-transgender, or what ever hot button derogatory name is in the news this week, that they will always go with the "safe" candidate. And lately, that has been the Dem's.

In the 50's it was the Rep, so times do change, but in the end the masses are the same.

But then again. There is a lot of angry people in America. Sometimes, that can be a good thing in encouraging change.

[marshallnoise]

I don't think public service is public service. If she was a volunteer firefighter, I would have a different opinion. Public service is public extortion and that's some bullshit.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[roguetoaster]

This is what gets me every time.

That's the whole theory of why we need an electoral college, so that in theory, an unfit candidate can win popular support but not be elected.

Just look at how voting rights were first dispensed, only to those the framers thought most capable of making an informed decision. Granted, they may have been operating under the influence of various biases/popular feeling of the time, but in some ways they may have been correct.

What I don't fully understand is that people of today should be as capable, if not more considering near universal primary education, of making a fair and balanced decision (and listening to all sides of an argument), but that does not seem to be the case.

Maybe it's just a case of widespread frustration with political and societal goings on that's led people to latch on to one of two extremes in hopes of that side being the solution to the current national problems.

She should be in jail just like anyone else would be.

Everyone should be in jail, that would fix it. Just be sure that the last one in throws the keys far enough away.

You do realize that this is the USA, and not some place that has just one system of justice for everyone right? Further, the head of the FBI, a lifelong Republican said that she should not be prosecuted, so why (with all of the knowledge of the situation that we do not have) would you want her to be tried?

[BraveUlysses]

This is what gets me every time.

May not be in the circle you run with, but for me - many of the people around me who are now fully supporting Hillary are the same people who just a year ago were complaining about career politicians and how we need to get them out of office. They wanted to rid the system of them entirely and have an outsider elected for the President.

Like I said, your results may vary, but those here who have flip flopped like this truly have shown how much they are just swayed by the whole group think mentality. They are more worried about being thought of as an outside or non-conformist then to take a chance and get some real change done.

Or maybe they're terrified that a populist authoritarian has taken the GOP train off the rails and has a shot at the presidency, something that they didn't think was possible last year. You shouldn't draw wide conclusions from anecdotal experiences.

They are so worried about the threat of being called a racist or anti-feminist or anti-transgender, or what ever hot button derogatory name is in the news this week, that they will always go with the "safe" candidate. And lately, that has been the Dem's.

The people who worry about that shit are the racists and bigots who are too weak to stand up and take the shitstorm that comes from being an outspoken racist or bigot. Remember who's running on the platform of "anti-political correctness."

Everyone should be in jail, that would fix it. Just be sure that the last one in throws the keys far enough away.

You do realize that this is the USA, and not some place that has just one system of justice for everyone right? Further, the head of the FBI, a lifelong Republican said that she should not be prosecuted, so why (with all of the knowledge of the situation that we do not have) would you want her to be tried?

everyone likes the fantasy of imprisoning political opponents.

[marshallnoise]

You do realize that this is the USA, and not some place that has just one system of justice for everyone right? Further, the head of the FBI, a lifelong Republican said that she should not be prosecuted, so why (with all of the knowledge of the situation that we do not have) would you want her to be tried?

Hold on a minute here. What the fuck are the point of laws if they aren't to show the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior? The law is supposed to be applied equally. I don't give a crap that a Republican said that we shouldn't prosecute or not, she violated laws. Laws that lesser people would have gone to jail over and probably have already.

They are not a finer form of clay than us and as such, they should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

[marshallnoise]

Or maybe they're terrified that a populist authoritarian has taken the GOP train off the rails and has a shot at the presidency, something that they didn't think was possible last year. You shouldn't draw wide conclusions from anecdotal experiences.



The people who worry about that shit are the racists and bigots who are too weak to stand up and take the shitstorm that comes from being an outspoken racist or bigot. Remember who's running on the platform of "anti-political correctness."



everyone likes the fantasy of imprisoning political opponents.

I have attached a picture of where Bothell, WA is so anyone can run as far from you as possible if they find themselves in the area. You are certifiable. Really.

[supermansocks95]

They are so worried about the threat of being called a racist or anti-feminist or anti-transgender, or what ever hot button derogatory name is in the news this week, that they will always go with the "safe" candidate. And lately, that has been the Dem's.

I'm more of the anti-lying twatsicle and anti-bigot-reality show host kind of person.

[Dozyproductions]

Collectivism is authoritarianism. Globalism is collectivism. It's accepted by manufactured consent and even though you think we'd have a more informed electorate, corporate run social media and news makes sure it's the other way around. That is what a Mussolini type fascism is and that is what Hillary (since this is her thread) supports. The perfect union between state and corporation. She is the "establishment" candidate after all right?

So let's forget that we are living in some simple crony capitalist system or calling this corporatism. We have a private consortium of banks controlling our money and interest rates, thus our economy. A privately ran military industrial complex heavily influences or dictates our entire foreign policy for the benefits of corporations and politicians alike. We have corporations writing bills. The government, on a 'justified' whim, can intern the entire population, "re organize" the work force, forcefully vaccine us, and take our children. We have different tiers in our justice system and who knows what SCOTUS is thinking a lot of the time. We don't pick the candidates, elections that matter are 'rigged' (at least current DNC status), foreign aid does not mean what we think it means, our bill of rights are a bill of privileges and double speak is the law. We have a million options for sodas but only two for president. It is manufactured consent and a complete illusion of choice.

She can't be touched. We just saw this. Neither can her friends in the global collectivist institutions like the UN, Bilderburg Group, CFR, WTO, and etc. Peace on earth comes tied in a pretty bow but our sovereignty as a nation is being taken apart, one piece at a time because of it and we still haven't seen any peace. She, and therefore "they", are war hawks. She has mentioned that she has no problem with "punishing" Iran, Russia and China, with an emphasis that the nuclear option isn't out of the picture with Iran. She, and progressives and neocons alike, mentions America and Empire in the same breathe. In order to ensure our economic interests, there must only be one empire: us. So who's direct economic interest are those really? It's not to anyone that shares their allegiance to this country and only us by being the consumer. It's been described that you shouldn't look at her as a person but a mere tool for outside agendas that don't necessarily align with ours. This is the lady that will have the button to our nukes and who's already mentioned that she's willing to use it.

Just like you guys trying to defend her or only focus on Trump. Admittedly he's showing signs of an authoritarian but this is nothing new. So were Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR and anyone else that thinks executive orders is a good idea. For a just cause right? It has either gone well or bad yet these orders subvert democracy through authoritarianism.

Let's call it for what it is. We are a fascist country. There is a very cozy relationship between the state and the corporation while sacrificing of the public's civil liberties. We're led that the awful things this country does is making us safer and for the embetterment for us and the world because gosh darn it, who else would do it? They couldn't do it without American exceptionalist non existent morality. Pay your taxes, ask to pay for more, so you can be a functioning member of our grand *insert good descriptive adjective* society and we can continue to afford our fake money and our fake wars.

At times our republic's roots pop up but the collectivist usually wins out over time. The sooner you get it the sooner all of this makes sense. Call me crazy but stop being afraid to put 2 to and 2 together. That is how the public consciousness changes. We have to admit to ourselves that we have fucked up this badly. Until then, we deserve what we get; Clinton or Trump: a douche or turd sandwich.

[djjerme]

Clinton or Trump: a douche or turd sandwich.

I think that applies more this election then it did when they first broadcast that episode.