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.
"Thousands of people are calling for Bill Clinton's arrest after the former president allegedly campaigned for his wife too close to polling locations.
In some cases, people are claiming he even campaigned inside polling places."
We need to get some hookers 200 feet away from the polling locations to lure Bill away from the polls where he is not supposed to be.
Is there a policy concern here?
Or are you just slinging .
Your original post is false; surely you know that it has been debunked numerous times already. Maybe the Trumpster will tell us again how big his penis is.
Maybe Bernie will bring out the illegitimate child.
See how petty we can all be?
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-05-2016 at 06:09 PM..
Reason: language
"More than 82,000 people have electronically signed a petition that calls for the arrest of former President Bill Clinton after he went inside a polling place in a Boston suburb and shook hands, which many feel violates Massachusetts election law."
"which many feel violates Massachusetts election law."
This is a typical foamer problem, they "think" and "feel" things are true and false. If only there were some things, some germane, things. Something people could point to for reference. Something that stands outside the situation and reflects the truth of it. Oh wait, we have them, they're called facts.
"More than 82,000 people have electronically signed a petition that calls for the arrest of former President Bill Clinton after he went inside a polling place in a Boston suburb and shook hands, which many feel violates Massachusetts election law."
He broke the spirit of the law if not the letter. No Hillary buttons on his lapel, but of course he was at the polls as a visible representative of her campaign. Speaking as a former resident of New Bedford, he had no reason to be in New Bedford polling stations other than to influence the election, and he will probably never set foot inside New Bedford again in his life.
Look, he graduated from Yale Law School. He read the Massachusetts statute ahead of time, didn't wear buttons, realized that he could potentially be challenged as a representative of her campaign anyway, and took a calculated risk that it wasn't a big enough deal for the state to go after him.
If you're a Hillary supporter, you've been up to your neck in dirty politics for so long you probably wonder why something like this even deserves a second look. If you expect a little more transparency and a fair political process than the average Hillary supporter, well, welcome to real life. There it is. Take it or leave it.
That kinda stuff goes on all the time.
The judge in my precinct wears elephant earrings, an an elephant printed blouse, etc. I told her she was not supposed do that. "Oh, that's my good luck charm". I have seen some judges tell people to turn their shirts inside out. I seen judges ignore partisan shirts.
I have been threatened with arrest by cops and a principal for campaigning on private property. I informed the principal,when the district held early voting at the school open houses they turned the school into a polling place. I was 100 ft away because I measured. They were close enough to arresting me that I called the lawyer to meet me at the jail.
Anybody at that polling place could have and should have told the judge. The judge could have him removed if he refused to leave. The judge could call the cops, the Secretary of State and the AGs office.
"which many feel violates Massachusetts election law."
This is a typical foamer problem, they "think" and "feel" things are true and false. If only there were some things, some germane, things. Something people could point to for reference. Something that stands outside the situation and reflects the truth of it. Oh wait, we have them, they're called facts.
Wrong.
The law doesn't describe most of real life accurately. It can't. Life it too complex. Language is inadequate. Think of classroom rules as an analogy. No disruptive behavior allowed. Well, you can't very well list every one of the trillion and more possible behaviors that could be disruptive, can you? He wasn't allowed to represent her campaign inside the polling places. He did.
Do I think this is a huge deal? No, but he was definitely trying to influence the election. A prosecutor looks at this and realizes that proving his case would be difficult at best, and it's not worth the resources to pursue it.
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.
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.
