Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2016, 10:42 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Semantics is the card you're playing.

Nowhere on Clinton's website does it say anything about abolishing the Constitution.
No there's not. She's going to destroy the due process, no? Like I said, without due process, how much of the constitution would still be left?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2016, 10:48 AM
 
Location: SE Asia
16,236 posts, read 5,886,302 times
Reputation: 9117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Thread Title: "How can Hillary do so many illegal things, and still be in this election?"

People throw around the word "illegal," "crime," and "criminal" loosely. The fact is that to call someone a criminal, one must have been CONVICTED of a crime. Mrs. Clinton has not been convicted of anything and therefore, any claim of illegality is pure speculation.
This definition seems to contradict your point. More properly you would be correct, but it is not wrong to say that someone who commits a crime is a criminal even if they were not convicted. The FBI stated that Hillary broke laws. They chose not to indict because they felt they couldn't prove intent. That is laughable. How many people have been convicted of speeding even though they didn't intend to, or didn't realize they were speeding?

criminal
1) n. a popular term for anyone who has committed a crime, whether convicted of the offense or not. More properly it should apply only to those actually convicted of a crime. Repeat offenders are sometimes called habitual criminals. 2) adj. certain acts or people involved in or relating to a crime. Examples of uses include "criminal taking," "criminal conspiracy," a "criminal gang." (See: convict, felon, habitual criminal)

Criminal legal definition of criminal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 10:50 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,894,256 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962 View Post
No the system is and just because they haven't been indicted doesn't make it less true. Al Capone was a well know murderer and yet he went to prison for tax violations, they never pinned a murder on him.
My opinion is the system is corrupt.
They did turn up violations but choose not to charge Hillary. That said, both Clintons are lawyers. I would hope that they would be able to manipulate the law in their favor and avoid prosecution. The phrase "I don't recall" is a well known trick used to avoid perjury. Hillary used it 20 odd times to avoid answering damning questions.
Hey you can worship at the alter of the Clintons. That is your right, just don't expect everyone to join the religion.
If the system is corrupt, then the Republicans are willfully wasting millions of your tax dollars on these pointless investigations. Why? Why even investigate at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 10:51 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,894,256 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
No there's not. She's going to destroy the due process, no? Like I said, without due process, how much of the constitution would still be left?
Nowhere in that page does she say she's going to destroy due process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 11:18 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,135,461 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
Only one presidential candidate has a court date before a Federal judge this year of 2016:

His name is Donald Trump.
The other one has been in front of Congress LYING and making **** up non stop.. or even worse "she doesnt recall"..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
13,561 posts, read 10,363,103 times
Reputation: 8252
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69Charger View Post
This is a very simple question that baffles me. She has so much blood and scandal on her hands, yet is still eligible for the highest office in the land? And people WANT her???
Because all the crazy stuff the Republicans have thrown at her and Bill for the last 30 years have been found to be groundless. Just because you're unhappy with the results and efforts doesn't make it invalid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 11:43 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Nowhere in that page does she say she's going to destroy due process.
Prohibiting people from purchasing firearm just because they are on the no-fly list is destroying the due process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 11:47 AM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,982,916 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
No, I comprehend fine.

I comprehend that you don't have an adequate rebuttal, so you decide to go the route of personal insult.
The rebuttal is the truth. So I don't think you actually do comprehend fine. That's not an insult, but rather my opinion of you, based on the fact that you have been repeatedly given the facts yet you refuse to acknowledge them as facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 12:04 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,894,256 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Prohibiting people from purchasing firearm just because they are on the no-fly list is destroying the due process.
Then you will need to blame the members of Congress proposing to pass a law doing just this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2016, 12:05 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,894,256 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
The rebuttal is the truth. So I don't think you actually do comprehend fine. That's not an insult, but rather my opinion of you, based on the fact that you have been repeatedly given the facts yet you refuse to acknowledge them as facts.
OMG. It's an insult. If I said the same thing about you, you'd be insulted. I refrain from sharing my opinion of you, because I don't want to insult you.

Your definition of FACTS needs some work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top