• 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!

Clinton Refusing To Be Served

JasperL said:
We don't actually know she's refusing to be served. Some hack lawyers engaged in a PR stunt sent out a self serving press release alleging it.

Besides, she has no legal or ethical duty to make the process server's job easy. It's a really stupid BUTWHATABOUT!!!??!@!@W!@!@
Click to expand...

notice how cost effective it is for the slandered woman to drag hillary's name thru the mud a while longer
popcorn bart.jpg
 
justabubba said:
notice how cost effective it is for the slandered woman to drag hillary's name thru the mud a while longer
Click to expand...

Yes, abusing her office as a member of Congress, and the court system for political gain is a great ****ing strategy!! Three cheers for hacks abusing the system in a desperate attempt to remain relevant!!

It's the Trump strategy, basically. Good to see it trickling down for the rest of the country. Just lower that bar right into the dirt. Seems to be the plan.

:applaud
 
JasperL said:
Yes, abusing her office as a member of Congress, and the court system for political gain is a great ****ing strategy!! Three cheers for hacks abusing the system in a desperate attempt to remain relevant!!

It's the Trump strategy, basically. Good to see it trickling down for the rest of the country. Just lower that bar right into the dirt. Seems to be the plan.

:applaud
Click to expand...
Exploiting the chink in Hillary’s armor to get revenge for Clinton’s referring to her as a Russian agent
And extracting that pound of flesh at very little cost
 
justabubba said:
Exploiting the chink in Hillary’s armor to get revenge for Clinton’s referring to her as a Russian agent
And extracting that pound of flesh at very little cost
Click to expand...

Your argument is, if it works, you're for it. I don't agree.

Tulsi: "Sure, I swore to uphold the Constitution, but I want the state to award me $50 million for speech that didn't even name me, an elected official, but that I don't like, because it works for me politically, and that's all that matters, that's where my principles begin and end!! ELECT ME PRESIDENT!!"
 
justabubba said:
Exploiting the chink in Hillary’s armor to get revenge for Clinton’s referring to her as a Russian agent
And extracting that pound of flesh at very little cost
Click to expand...

You should watch your wording as some people will take what you said as a "racist" comment because you used "The 'C' Word".

Of course, some people would accuse someone who wanted to buy a "Maine Coon Cat" of being "racist" because they used a different "'C' Word".
 
smallvoice said:
No, this recent impeachment debacle showed that the political class is not above the law. What the Clinton action shows is that she thinks she is above the law, and she has shown that for years.
Click to expand...

That is just plain idiotic.

What this “impeachment debacle” may show is that Donald Trump is about to get away with placing himself above the law, while the right wingers who cheer for it are yelling straight out of the other sides of their mouths that someone else is, based on no evidence, and conflated claims from dubious sources.

But this is the way the right wing works. And always has.
 
JasperL said:
We don't actually know she's refusing to be served. Some hack lawyers engaged in a PR stunt sent out a self serving press release alleging it.

Besides, she has no legal or ethical duty to make the process server's job easy. It's a really stupid BUTWHATABOUT!!!??!@!@W!@!@
Click to expand...

I here the left complain about whataboutism a lot and then they all turn around and do it themselves all the time.
 
Deuce said:
If you believe Hillary Clinton is “refusing to be served a lawsuit,” you haven’t actually been following this. It was a publicity stunt from Tulsi, and you fell for it.

Furthermore, it’s utterly absurd to compare this to Trump’s obstruction.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit was a publicity stunt but it was still a lawsuit in which Hillary is refusing to be served. I agree the lawsuit is stupid and nuts and a publicity stunt.
 
Moderate Right said:
The lawsuit was a publicity stunt but it was still a lawsuit in which Hillary is refusing to be served. I agree the lawsuit is stupid and nuts and a publicity stunt.
Click to expand...

It speaks to the frustration she feels. Remember, although we can see that the democrat party's constant "You're a Russian asset" refrain, for anybody that disagrees with their whacky politics, the casual citizen that goes by what they hear on the car radio isn't aware of this. What other remedy can be employed to combat that nonsense? And it's so ironic, considering Uranium One...….
 
OscarLevant said:
It's not illegal to dodge a process server. Court does not have jurisdiction until process is served.

Once she is served, and if she defies the subpoena/summons, then you'd have a point.
Click to expand...

Said like a true Dimocrat.
 
smallvoice said:
Said like a true Dimocrat.
Click to expand...

Your post in which you imitate a whiny, snot-nosed, little child who doesn't have a clue about what the law is an excellent imitation of a post by a whiny, snot-nosed, little child who doesn't have a clue about what the law is.

Congratulations.
 
TomFitz said:
That is just plain idiotic.

What this “impeachment debacle” may show is that Donald Trump is about to get away with placing himself above the law, while the right wingers who cheer for it are yelling straight out of the other sides of their mouths that someone else is, based on no evidence, and conflated claims from dubious sources.

But this is the way the right wing works. And always has.
Click to expand...

Your response is what's idiotic, but in light of your leaders, I can see where you get those ideas. It is the leadership of the House that doesn't understand the law (they must be lawyers), as evidenced by their poor showing in this debacle. Speaking of no evidence? Look there first.
 
somebody tell Hillary to do exactly what Donald Trump does every time he's sued. it works.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Your post in which you imitate a whiny, snot-nosed, little child who doesn't have a clue about what the law is an excellent imitation of a post by a whiny, snot-nosed, little child who doesn't have a clue about what the law is.

Congratulations.
Click to expand...

And you confirmed my post: Said like a true Dimocrat. I DO know what the law is. Adam Schiff, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and apparently, you? not so much
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The statement was made by someone for whom Ms. Clinton is NOT "one of OUR Guys" and who, in fact, lists Ms. Clinton as "one of THEIR Guys".

The currently operative rule in the US (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that

"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."
​

On the other hand, (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") the currently operative rule is

"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T*** and even thinking about investigating any allegations about them is unconstitutional."
​
Click to expand...

Yawn......
 
lurchadams said:
It's side shows like this that cloud the Democrat's message and one of the reasons they lost the 2016 General.

My advice - take a lesson from the GOP, stick together and do everything in your power to vilify the other side. Attacking each other only makes you look weak.

I wish both Gabbard and Clinton would **** off and go away.
Click to expand...
Frankly I'd rather have Gabbard than Clinton.

But that might be mainly because I have more reason to distrust Clinton.
 
Deuce said:
Trump should be in prison many times over.
Click to expand...

The question is when he leaves office will he face years of litigation, including criminal for his misdeeds as President or will his successor not prosecute in the name of 'healing the country'. We know of some, but his legal issues are like an iceberg. At some point Trump will be accountable.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
I here the left complain about whataboutism a lot and then they all turn around and do it themselves all the time.
Click to expand...

So what? If an idiot does something stupid, how does that make the stupid thing you do any more compelling? I'm confused.... :confused:
 
JasperL said:
So what? If an idiot does something stupid, how does that make the stupid thing you do any more compelling? I'm confused.... :confused:
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. If you allow whataboutism then you have to allow it from both sides. The left don't seem to understand this.
 
Wait, what Hillary is refusing to be served a legal court document? Hasn't she been one of those spouting nobody's above the law throughout this entire impeachment debacle?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Already been proven many times over. Just for starters, she violated the espionage act.
Click to expand...

She's been lied about many times over, yes. Has it been proven? No, it hasn't.

So, prove it. Put your money where your mouth is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom