• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Hillary Isn't Indicted, the Rule of Law and the Republic Are Dead

danarhea said:
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

The rule of law does not work for everybody, it hasn't for quite some time. Hillary not being indicted is just another day in the protected lives of politicians and the rich.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Which wouldn't have happened if the suit had not been filed. Gee whiz!
Click to expand...

I think not having the maturity to accept responsibility for ones own actions is a requisite to being a Liberal.
 
If Hillary is not indicted the GOP can kiss the WH goodbye until 2020

Republicans only hope is to win by default
 
Fenton said:
I think not having the maturity to accept responsibility for ones own actions is a requisite to being a Liberal.
Click to expand...

And believing that personal responsibility applies to everyone but oneself is a requisite to being a conservative.
 
danarhea said:
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What the founders of America had in mind was that our laws would apply to everyone, from the president on down. That's why we kicked out King Richard's monarchy. Unfortunately Hillary has been spoiled. Her and her philandering husband had scandals going on in Arkansas, they created more scandals going into the White House, during their stay in the White House and even leaving the White House. And they have added more since leaving the White House. Hillary has no respect for or fear of the law because the Clintons have managed to get away with breaking it from the beginning. Hillary knew full well that the private email server was in violation of federal and state department law, she just did not give a sh*t. Other then dealing with the publicity of the scandals, she feels that she is untouchable, no matter what she does. And the rants of: "Well Colin Powell and Condi Rice did it too" are nothing more then blather meant for the idiots who support her. Powell and Rice sent one or two state dept emails through gmail, however Hillary sent a minimum of 1200 on a unsecure private server hidden in a loft apartment bathroom.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Too late. The rule of law and the republic died with Bush vs. Gore in 2000.
Click to expand...

Yes....Gore and his campaign staff should have been arrested and convicted for attempting a bloodless coup to steal the election.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yes....Gore and his campaign staff should have been arrested and convicted for attempting a bloodless coup to steal the election.
Click to expand...

Rhenquist and Scalia are already burning in hell for their treason. Now we just have Uncle Clarence and a couple of others...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Rhenquist and Scalia are already burning in hell for their treason. Now we just have Uncle Clarence and a couple of others...
Click to expand...


How is it treason? Remember their were libruls on the court that voted with the conservatives on the court Most adults by now have accepted that Bush won the 2000 election.
 
ObamacareFail said:
How is it treason? Remember their were libruls on the court that voted with the conservatives on the court Most adults by now have accepted that Bush won the 2000 election.
Click to expand...

Another conjob lie. Only Kennedy voted with the wingnuts on Bush v Gore, and he's far from "librul." And as much as you try to agree with "most adults," that's not enough to make you one.
 
"If Hillary Isn't Indicted, the Rule of Law and the Republic Are Dead"

She isn't going to be indicted. I guess I should start looking for a home in South America.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Another conjob lie. Only Kennedy voted with the wingnuts on Bush v Gore, and he's far from "librul." And as much as you try to agree with "most adults," that's not enough to make you one.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS vote was 7 to 2 . Do you think there were only two libruls on the court?
 
They need cooperation with the justice department, which looks like is not going to happen. Obama's arrogance is either a big act of " Oh really?" Or he is completely disconnected from events.
 
danarhea said:
Yea, impeachment over a blow job was a little over the top, especially considering the fact that Dennis Hastert was diddling little boys and paying them hush money to keep quiet. LOL.
Click to expand...

it was perjury..I hear there's a law about it on the books

...which is kinda pertinent to a discussion about politicians and the rule of law.;)
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Check your facts: it was 5 to 4.
Click to expand...

You need to check your facts, sport. There were two US Supreme Court votes. The first which was 7 to 2 decided that the Gore camp's vote counting methods were unconstitutional. The second vote which was 5 to 4 was a decision to stop the Gore camp from continuously requesting new recounts with a constitutional deadline fast approaching. Someday when you are perhaps not such a staunch partisan, you will learn to accept that Gore lost the 2000 election.
 
or...or...maybe they saw much more than we did because they are actual investigators rather than uninformed political enemies.

Look, I am no fan of Hillary at all, but if anyone thinks Obama is going to allow Hillary to fry, they need to guess again. No way will he let that happen.

The political class look out for each other, and always have.

but...like I said before...I am not privy to the high level of info they can see.

That is why I will not be a reverse Ferguson rioter. If they let her off, then that is what they do.

The sun will still come up tomorrow.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You need to check your facts, sport. There were two US Supreme Court votes. The first which was 7 to 2 decided that the Gore camp's vote counting methods were unconstitutional. The second vote which was 5 to 4 was a decision to stop the Gore camp from continuously requesting new recounts with a constitutional deadline fast approaching. Someday when you are perhaps not such a staunch partisan, you will learn to accept that Gore lost the 2000 election.
Click to expand...

Scalia and Thomas ideologically flip flopped on their votes because it helped the republican.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You need to check your facts, sport. There were two US Supreme Court votes. The first which was 7 to 2 decided that the Gore camp's vote counting methods were unconstitutional. The second vote which was 5 to 4 was a decision to stop the Gore camp from continuously requesting new recounts with a constitutional deadline fast approaching. Someday when you are perhaps not such a staunch partisan, you will learn to accept that Gore lost the 2000 election.
Click to expand...

And you were caught making a sad and obvious effort to mislead. Sport.

Oh and, the pot-kettle thing for your silly "staunch partisan" barb.
 
Absentglare said:
Scalia and Thomas ideologically flip flopped on their votes because it helped the republican.
Click to expand...

You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Seven of the nine justices stopped the Gore recount because it did not pass constitutional muster. The Florida Supreme Court should have stopped it before it ever made it to the SCOTUS. The moral of the story is that you cannot just make up the rules for counting the votes on the fly. You have to go with existing rules. And the second decision which was 5 to 4 stopped the Gore camp from continuously requesting recount after recount after recount until they hoped they would get the result they desired. Claiming to get into Scalia and Thomas's head is not advancing your losing argument.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And you were caught making a sad and obvious effort to mislead. Sport.

Oh and, the pot-kettle thing for your silly "staunch partisan" barb.
Click to expand...

Nope. I am merely educating you as you obviously did not have a clue what went on when the 2000 election went to the US Supreme Court.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Seven of the nine justices stopped the Gore recount because it did not pass constitutional muster. The Florida Supreme Court should have stopped it before it ever made it to the SCOTUS. The moral of the story is that you cannot just make up the rules for counting the votes on the fly. You have to go with existing rules. And the second decision which was 5 to 4 stopped the Gore camp from continuously requesting recount after recount after recount until they hoped they would get the result they desired. Claiming to get into Scalia and Thomas's head is not advancing your losing argument.
Click to expand...

"Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas filed a concurring opinion invoking Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and Title 3 U.S.C. § 5, both of which explicitly confer upon states the choice of presidential electors, but provide that it is the state legislature that should direct the manner in which they are selected.35 The Flor- ida Supreme Court, the three justices contended, had interfered in the Legisla- ture’s rightful process. (That Court was dominated by Democrats, while the Legislature was firmly in the hands of Republicans). The three thus insisted that their decision “does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures.”36 The Court’s ultra-conservatives, who never hesitated to defer to the state courts when it served their ideological agenda, found that position inconvenient in this controversy."

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=nlj

It wasn't the Gore recount. It was the state law recount. The state court upheld the state's law which required a recount. A recount makes the results more accurate. The conservatives feared any route that could jeopardize their desired result
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You don't have a leg to stand on, here.
Click to expand...

It is you that does not have a leg to stand on. The US Supreme Court made the right decision in both cases. The Gore camp was making up new vote counting methods on the fly and the US constitution prohibited the Gore camp from continuously requesting recounts until they got their desired result. They were entitled to the first recount which was automatic based on how narrow the Bush victory was. Anything after that was a gift. They attempted to pull a fast one by requesting the second recount and limiting that request to four precincts where the democrat party dominated the vote counting apparatus. Then they made up new counting rules as they went along. When they ultimately came up short and were stopped by the SCOTUS, they then requested a statewide recount. However with a constitutional deadline quickly approaching, the SCOTUS said "No!" Gore lost. That was the end of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom