Now that is Trump v HRC

[TUMe]

I don't want to go into Condi and Colin Powell's stuff at all, as I think it is never a good debate position to do the whole "But someone else did something similar" thing.

But I'll play devil's advocate and suppose that you may be right. So then, in that case, now what? You've got a scofflaw on one had, but the 800 orange gorilla in the room wants Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapon programs. How do you think China and Russia will respond to that? To me, the difference is so stark as to make this year a no brainer.

So Hillary walks because Trump is dangerous. Trump is dangerous but Hillary was guilty of not giving a tinker's damn about security. If she doesn't get to run Joe Biden will come riding in on a white horse. I would prefer him to her or Trump. He isn't my cup of tea, but compared to either of those..what about "no one is too big to go to jail".

 

[lawpoke87]

I've seen the Japan and South Korea argument made several times. What puzzles me is it's being made by the same people who supported the farce of agreement we made with Iran which paves the path for them to develop their own nuclear weapons. I'm not disagreeing with the critics of the Japan and South Korea policy just pointing out the inconsistencies I see along political lines. I think opposition to both of the ideas would be more reasonable.

BTW...A Secretary of State who was as careless with vital intelligence as Hillary and then giving her access to even more sensitive intelligence could be considered not only dangerous but reckless by many.

 

[Clong83a]

So Hillary walks because Trump is dangerous. Trump is dangerous but Hillary was guilty of not giving a tinker's damn about security. If she doesn't get to run Joe Biden will come riding in on a white horse. I would prefer him to her or Trump. He isn't my cup of tea, but compared to either of those..what about "no one is too big to go to jail".

Sure, I agree no one is too big to go to jail. But I don't have all the facts, nor am I aware of all the intricacies of her position that might affect how "bad" what she did really was. The FBI theoretically does, and they and the US Attorney's office will make a decision. It is likely they will do nothing. You can interpret that a few ways. A) She is guilty as sin, but skated due to her power and influence. B) She exercised horrible judgement, but technically broke no laws, even if it was stupid, or even C) They simply didn't have enough evidence to prosecute. None of those really looks good on her part, and I will personally probably never know which it is.

But in any of those cases, I highly doubt I'll actually see Joe Biden on my November ballot, as much as I'd like to see him there. So I am preparing for the choice that I will most likely actually have in front of me. As they say to you anytime you walk into a ski shop, "Buy skis for the conditions you actually ski, not the conditions you'd most like to ski." So I will make choices based on the world and country we've got, not the one I'd most like to have. HRC it is, unless something dramatic happens which throws the whole narrative off-script.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The article you quoted doesn't say what you are saying, WATU. It says he wants the trial to be either before or after the convention. That is reasonable. Trail dates have been moved for lesser reasons.

As far as raising Trump's lawsuit every time Hillary's problems get mentioned, they are not related. I would be fine with both losing their cases. One being guilty doesn't take away from the other being guilty.

I just read that article and it seems to me that Watu's interpretation of what that article says is accurate. It says that Trump is fighting an attempt to have that trial just before or after the convention, not that he is requesting this. It later goes on to say that his lawyers are making arguments against having the trial during his presidential campaign, saying it would cause a media circus and be impossible to get unbiased jurors. It implies that his attorneys are asking for it to happen after November.

 

[aTUfan]

Hey Hillary your phone is ringing at 3am.

 

[URedskin54]

I don't want to go into Condi and Colin Powell's stuff at all, as I think it is never a good debate position to do the whole "But someone else did something similar" thing.

But I'll play devil's advocate and suppose that you may be right. So then, in that case, now what? You've got a scofflaw on one had, but the 800 orange gorilla in the room wants Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapon programs. How do you think China and Russia will respond to that? To me, the difference is so stark as to make this year a no brainer.

I don't disagree with you, which is why I'm more or less comfortable letting her beat him. It would be nice if our intel community simply characterized him as the threat they know he is and denied him clearance. The same argument could be made for Hillary though, since she's already put a lot of highly classified material in jeopardy. Former CIA people say they'd be shocked if Russia didn't hack her server.

 

[TUMe]

I just read that article and it seems to me that Watu's interpretation of what that article says is accurate. It says that Trump is fighting an attempt to have that trial just before or after the convention, not that he is requesting this. It later goes on to say that his lawyers are making arguments against having the trial during his presidential campaign, saying it would cause a media circus and be impossible to get unbiased jurors. It implies that his attorneys are asking for it to happen after November.

I will assume that your interpretation and that of the WATU is correct and back off of my previous post . My position again is that I hope justice is done in both cases whatever that turns out to be without special flavors for either Trump or Clinton both cases should go ahead although not only very week of the convention . Whatever is reasonable and customary should prevail .

 

[ba11game]

Huma had access, just like the general's girlfriend.

LOL

Maybe she should divorce Bill and marry Huma so Huma can't be forced to testify against Hillary.

 

[TU 1978]

Hillary could be not only our first woman president, but a LGBT one as well.

 

[Clong83a]

Hillary could be not only our first woman president, but a LGBT one as well.

I read up on James Buchanan for another thread, and it seems likely that he beat her to it. Only lifelong bachelor president, and he had a male 'companion' that went everywhere with him.

 

[TUMe]

I read up on James Buchanan for another thread, and it seems likely that he beat her to it. Only lifelong bachelor president, and he had a male 'companion' that went everywhere with him.

Yep, Andrew Jackson referred to them as Aunt Nancy and Miss Fancy. But Buchanan's line of thought was that secession was illegal but it was also illegal for him to do anything about it. That had much more impact than his sexual orientation.