Thread: President of the US of A

Yep pure as snow.............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QTPVe6-Pso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDuRyBWUEho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY

Even if any of this is hooey it sure is a lot of bad history trailing these two.....but it's probably nothing

I'm sure the first two videos I put in there were just paid attacks and nothing real ........

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You guys seem to have problems distinguishing guilt and allegations. Guilt is decided in a court of law not the people's court. Allegations, well anyone can allege anything they want and it means squat.

If yer talking guilt start by bringing on the evidence.

That's all anyone is asking for. That is for the Clintons to be judged (for each and every allegation of criminal wrongdoing) in a jury trial. They say you can indict a ham sandwich -- apparently you can't indict a Clinton, even with overwhelming prima facie evidence. Further, regarding Hillary's statement that the FBI is doing a routine "security inquiry," the Director said last week that the FBI doesn't do inquiries. He said, the I stands for Investigation and they only do criminal investigations. So, it's not up to us to bring the evidence, even though it's quite clear to anyone who even casually looks at the evidence fairly that is already in the public domain. That's the job of the FBI. We will now see if the FBI is an impartial criminal investigative organization, or simply a strong-arm political tool of whomever is currently president, like the DOJ.

I'm going to reiterate what I said earlier. The Clintons and their myrmidons never say that they are innocent, they always say: "There's no evidence." Which is exactly what Whitey Bolger says. "If nobody saw it, it didn't happen." Criminals may be evil, but some of them are not stupid. The successful ones always have fan boys, who love to see evil succeed. Crowds cheered on the several occasions when John Gotti was acquitted, successfully thumbing his nose at the law, justice and at human decency.

Originally Posted by Nightblade

I'm sure the first two videos I put in there were just paid attacks and nothing real ........

OK, so I watched those videos.

The first one is about Bill Clinton having sex with an intern and then lying about it. If that troubles you so much, shouldn't the same thing trouble you at least equally in Donald Trump?
I mean Bill Clinton lied about it because it was wrong thing to do, Donald Trump has bragged about his conquests because he thinks it shows how great he is that the conventional rules do not apply to him. The way I see it Trump is making something wrong several levels worse.

On the second one a congressman supposedly 'nails' Clinton for 'not telling the american people the truth about Benghazi'. The big truth being hidden is that there was a terrorist attack, but Clinton pretended it was just a peaceful demonstration - at least that's what I can tell from it.
It wasn't that long ago, and what I remember doesn't fit the congressman's narrative.

But he does explain what is going on - it was election time and the two sides were trying to score political points - the republicans to present Obama as a weak president who can't deal with the national security, the democrats the opposite.
But since Obama won that election, the only political advantage is now going after Hillary Clinton because she is most likely going to be the next presidential nominee.


So, yes, this is all politics, but the problem now for the republican party is that they nominated Donald Trump - it diminishes this whole line of attacks against Hillary Clinton on national security because Trump has shown he is far more clueless and irresponsible with his words. He even has to convince his own party, after getting the nomination, that he can be trusted to not act recklessly in this area.

Originally Posted by Uzi

They say you can indict a ham sandwich --

Would that not impose double jeopardy since the pig already suffered capitol punishment?

Originally Posted by honedright

Would that not impose double jeopardy since the pig already suffered capitol punishment?

No. The pig was neither charged nor prosecuted. As such, he was a murder victim and not an executed prisoner. For that reason, I assume the sandwich is fair game.

Originally Posted by gugi

OK, so I watched those videos.

The first one is about Bill Clinton having sex with an intern and then lying about it. If that troubles you so much, shouldn't the same thing trouble you at least equally in Donald Trump?
I mean Bill Clinton lied about it because it was wrong thing to do, Donald Trump has bragged about his conquests because he thinks it shows how great he is that the conventional rules do not apply to him. The way I see it Trump is making something wrong several levels worse.

Yes, he only committed perjury in that particular case, which was shrugged off by Democrats with the response that, "Everybody lies about sex." Of course, a better response would be, "He's a Clinton. He lies about everything. What did you expect?"

[
From news articles.

"Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards," the Daily Mail reported."

"Bill Clinton reportedly has made multiple trips to a private island with Clinton fundraiser Jeffrey Epstein that has underage sex slaves. Bill Clinton was identified in lawsuit against Epstein who allegedly had ‘regular’ orgiesat his Caribbean compound."
]
Nobody cares what you do when your outside U. S. borders right? You guys sure do defend some unsavory people. Each to his own, I guess.

Originally Posted by Utopian

No. The pig was neither charged nor prosecuted. As such, he was a murder victim and not an executed prisoner. For that reason, I assume the sandwich is fair game.

Therefore, does it make more sense to indict a living person under suspicion of multiple offenses, or to charge the corpse of a dead pig who has offended no one, and in fact surrendered it's life for the benefit of mankind. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Uzi

You guys sure do defend some unsavory people. Each to his own, I guess.

I am not defending anybody, I just marvel how people are able to find every fault with the opposing side, while turning a blind eye to the exact same faults sometimes in a worse manifestation on their side.

I'm not impressed by cherry-picking Bill Clinton among all politicians and businessmen who have rubbed shoulders with that guy. I'd be impressed when you apply the same standard to people you are going to vote for as for people you are going to vote against.

Originally Posted by gugi

I am not defending anybody, I just marvel how people are able to find every fault with the opposing side, while turning a blind eye to the exact same faults sometimes in a worse manifestation on their side.

I'm not impressed by cherry-picking Bill Clinton among all politicians and businessmen who have rubbed shoulders with that guy. I'd be impressed when you apply the same standard to people you are going to vote for as for people you are going to vote against.

Could it be more evidence of that "factious spirit" that has tainted public administration?