Moiraine Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I agree that Hillary is well versed but she is also a traitor to this country so that might have an impact, but that is a big might. Clinton will eat him alive in a debate and on the campaign trail. Clintons are well versed in how to get down and dirty in a campaign and we are about to see that be taken to an entire new level not seen before. The [FBI] probe could be completed “in weeks not months,” the report added, citing unnamed law enforcement officials. You could just wait a few weeks to make that statement, since you don't know that it's true at this point. Link to comment
funhusker Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Hillary isn't going to jail, guys... or is it "guise"? not sure... Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I agree that Hillary is well versed but she is also a traitor to this country so that might have an impact, but that is a big might. Clinton will eat him alive in a debate and on the campaign trail. Clintons are well versed in how to get down and dirty in a campaign and we are about to see that be taken to an entire new level not seen before. The [FBI] probe could be completed in weeks not months, the report added, citing unnamed law enforcement officials. You could just wait a few weeks to make that statement, since you don't know that it's true at this point. Sometimes it. Is better to be proactive....Like Grant....who went home to his family Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Hillary isn't going to jail, guys... or is it "guise"? not sure... I don't think even teach thinks she'll go to jail but that's not really the topic at hand. If she does go to jail I hope it's before the primaries are over. I prefer Bernie anyhow. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I would laugh hard if the repubs had a contested convention and nominated someone not even running. Then, Clinton gets nominated only to go to be indicted before the election. Both sides would be I such turmoil that nobody would know what to do. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful? Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful? Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. I don't personally know one person that will vote for Treaston, not one. Do you guys? Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease. Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful? Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. I don't personally know one person that will vote for Treaston, not one. Do you guys? Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease. Since it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Even taking all of the allegations against Clinton at their face, none of it meets the legal definition of treason. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Good Lord help me....if I appear to be defending Hillary. This joke that Hillary committed treason is just laughable and it really shows the total lack of anything substantial her opponents have to say. Which says more about the pathetic state the Republicans are in than anything about Hillary. If it comes down to HIllary and Trump and there is no third party candidate worth a hoot, I honestly will have to either vote for Hillary or sit this one out. I will probably have to sit it out.....unless Trump becomes absolutely so unbearable as an option that I will have to vote against him just so he doesn't win. PS....I don't think that will happen because I think Hillary will absolutely demolish him. Even though I don't trust her and disagree with her on issues, she can at least discuss the issues without alienating 93.45% of the population. 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful? Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. I don't personally know one person that will vote for Treaston, not one. Do you guys? Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease. Since it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Even taking all of the allegations against Clinton at their face, none of it meets the legal definition of treason. What if just one of her emails sent/received gave aid and/or comfort to an enemy? Also, you might have old information but I don't think treason is punishable by death anymore, is it? I think that was revised a few years back. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful? Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. I don't personally know one person that will vote for Treaston, not one. Do you guys? Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease. Since it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Even taking all of the allegations against Clinton at their face, none of it meets the legal definition of treason. What if just one of her emails sent/received gave aid and/or comfort to an enemy? Also, you might have old information but I don't think treason is punishable by death anymore, is it? I think that was revised a few years back. Her purposely giving the enemies information and help through an email would be treason. Her accidentally allowing enemies to get access to information because she did something stupid is NOT treason. It's just plain stupid. Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful?Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. I don't personally know one person that will vote for Treaston, not one. Do you guys? Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease. Since it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Even taking all of the allegations against Clinton at their face, none of it meets the legal definition of treason. What if just one of her emails sent/received gave aid and/or comfort to an enemy?Also, you might have old information but I don't think treason is punishable by death anymore, is it? I think that was revised a few years back. Her purposely giving the enemies information and help through an email would be treason. Her accidentally allowing enemies to get access to information because she did something stupid is NOT treason. It's just plain stupid. Oh, I agree with what you are saying but isn't that for a jury to decide? If they do jury trials for this offense. There is no law for being stupid...if there was I think every guy from the ages of 13-25 would have to be locked up! Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, it's early and yes it's Vox and yes it's referencing HuffPo. But....data is showing that Trump is trailing Clinton by 9-11 points in the general. That's a lot. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning Real clear politics shows an average of the last 5 or so polls and it's about the same. Trump has said several times he "hasn't gone after Clinton yet." But people already know about Clinton. What's hating her more going to do if he's successful? Also, using the same debate techniques against her is going to backfire. Even though his fans seem immune to changing their minds. I don't think he'll gain any. That's the important bit. His unfavorables are so astronomically bad (worse than Clinton's, which says a lot), that he's going to need to expand his base in order to not get demolished. But he's shown no ability to do that thus far. He's having a hard time even doing that in the Pub primary. If he clinches the nomination and plays it like he has been, Clinton vs. Trump will be a verifiable bloodbath. I don't personally know one person that will vote for Treaston, not one. Do you guys? Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease. Since it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Even taking all of the allegations against Clinton at their face, none of it meets the legal definition of treason. What if just one of her emails sent/received gave aid and/or comfort to an enemy? Also, you might have old information but I don't think treason is punishable by death anymore, is it? I think that was revised a few years back. Her purposely giving the enemies information and help through an email would be treason. Her accidentally allowing enemies to get access to information because she did something stupid is NOT treason. It's just plain stupid. Oh, I agree with what you are saying but isn't that for a jury to decide? If they do jury trials for this offense. That's perfectly fine. I'd be OK with seeing her in court. However, people are acting like she is a traitor right now which is is impossible to say till it is proved in court. I personally just think she is stupid and thought she was above the rules (which happens with her a lot). Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Shoot, lots of people thought OJ was a murderer before he went to court and it turned out that they were right...oh wait. Link to comment
Recommended Posts