Ponderable

Sheriff Joe said:
You may be right but that doesn't change the fact Michelle Obama hates my country.
Click to expand...

She's basically the opposite of Arpaio, she represents the best of America and you and your ilk are dinosaurs who just wish for the old days when you were free to shit on everyone and everything you didn't approve of.
 
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Thursday submitted written answers under penalty of perjury in a lawsuit about her use of a private email server while secretary of State, Politico reported.

In the answers, submitted to conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, the Democratic nominee wrote 20 times she didn't recall the information that was requested, according to Politico.

"Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned," about her email server, lawyers for Clinton wrote.

"She does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that her use of a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal record keeping laws."

On Monday, Clinton signed the legal filing "under penalty of perjury."

A federal judge had ordered her to answer written questions in connection with a Freedom of Information Action lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Lawyers for Judicial Watch had initially requested a live deposition to question the Democratic nominee.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...email-lawsuit/ar-AAiVjgl?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp
 
It’s not the ‘locker room’ talk. It’s the ‘lock her up’ talk.

From LE's favorite. Charles Krauthammer

To which list Trump added in the second debate, and it had nothing to do with sex. It was his threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in jail.
After appointing a special prosecutor, of course. The niceties must be observed. First, a fair trial, then a proper hanging. The day after the debate at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to chants of “lock her up” with “Lock her up is right.” Two days later, he told a rally in Lakeland, Fla., “She has to go to jail.”


Such incendiary talk is an affront to elementary democratic decency and a breach of the boundaries of American political discourse. In democracies, the electoral process is a subtle and elaborate substitute for combat, the age-old way of settling struggles for power. But that sublimation only works if there is mutual agreement to accept both the legitimacy of the result (which Trump keeps undermining with charges that the very process is “rigged”) and the boundaries of the contest.
The prize for the winner is temporary accession to limited political power, not the satisfaction of vendettas. Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and a cavalcade of two-bit caudillos lock up their opponents. American leaders don’t.

Trump also promises to “open up” libel laws to permit easier prosecution of those who attack him unfairly. Has he ever conceded any attack on him to be fair?
This election is not just about placing the nuclear codes in Trump’s hands. It’s also about handing him the instruments of civilian coercion, such as the IRS, the FBI, the FCC, the SEC. Think of what he could do to enforce the “fairness” he demands. Imagine giving over the vast power of the modern state to a man who says in advance that he will punish his critics and jail his opponent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-card-d:homepage/story&utm_term=.e316ba0e994a
 
Andy Dukes said:
It’s not the ‘locker room’ talk. It’s the ‘lock her up’ talk.

From LE's favorite. Charles Krauthammer

To which list Trump added in the second debate, and it had nothing to do with sex. It was his threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in jail.
After appointing a special prosecutor, of course. The niceties must be observed. First, a fair trial, then a proper hanging. The day after the debate at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to chants of “lock her up” with “Lock her up is right.” Two days later, he told a rally in Lakeland, Fla., “She has to go to jail.”


Such incendiary talk is an affront to elementary democratic decency and a breach of the boundaries of American political discourse. In democracies, the electoral process is a subtle and elaborate substitute for combat, the age-old way of settling struggles for power. But that sublimation only works if there is mutual agreement to accept both the legitimacy of the result (which Trump keeps undermining with charges that the very process is “rigged”) and the boundaries of the contest.
The prize for the winner is temporary accession to limited political power, not the satisfaction of vendettas. Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and a cavalcade of two-bit caudillos lock up their opponents. American leaders don’t.

Trump also promises to “open up” libel laws to permit easier prosecution of those who attack him unfairly. Has he ever conceded any attack on him to be fair?
This election is not just about placing the nuclear codes in Trump’s hands. It’s also about handing him the instruments of civilian coercion, such as the IRS, the FBI, the FCC, the SEC. Think of what he could do to enforce the “fairness” he demands. Imagine giving over the vast power of the modern state to a man who says in advance that he will punish his critics and jail his opponent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-the-locker-room-talk-its-the-lock-her-up-talk/2016/10/13/9dd5fbea-9172-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story&utm_term=.e316ba0e994a
Click to expand...
It would be good to have a guy who the media hates in office.
They would be inclined to do their job.
What we have now, is a media that is basically an arm of the administration.

If Trump were to be elected president, the media would fulfill their role again, as a watchdog, instead of the lapdog they play now.
 
Andy Dukes said:
This election is not just about placing the nuclear codes in Trump’s hands. It’s also about handing him the instruments of civilian coercion, such as the IRS, the FBI, the FCC, the SEC. Think of what he could do to enforce the “fairness” he demands. Imagine giving over the vast power of the modern state to a man who says in advance that he will punish his critics and jail his opponent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-the-locker-room-talk-its-the-lock-her-up-talk/2016/10/13/9dd5fbea-9172-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story&utm_term=.e316ba0e994a
Click to expand...
The instruments of civilian coercion? Interesting topic. Obviously not as coercive for Hillary wouldn't you say?
 
Andy Dukes said:
It’s not the ‘locker room’ talk. It’s the ‘lock her up’ talk.

From LE's favorite. Charles Krauthammer



. It’s also about handing him the instruments of civilian coercion, such as the IRS, the FBI, the FCC, the SEC. Think of what he could do to enforce the “fairness” he demands. Imagine giving over the vast power of the modern state to a man who says in advance that he will punish his critics and jail his opponent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-the-locker-room-talk-its-the-lock-her-up-talk/2016/10/13/9dd5fbea-9172-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story&utm_term=.e316ba0e994a
Click to expand...
This part reveals something Kruathammer should understand is already under way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top