-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Threatens to Jail Clinton if He Wins Election!
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Prayer's about right only a miracle from God will help Trump win.
I am still in amazement that conservatives feel like the possibility of having been hacked is worse travesty than possibly of someone being responsible for sexual assault. I can understand liberals not wanting to chant "jail him" yadayada cause that goes against liberal base but the tunnel vision from some of the right is really troublesome. Of course liberals aren't going to want prison time for what they consider petty crimes. But email deleting vs sexual assault, thought I'd never see the day. The left prays too, probably that humanity will get some sense knocked into them.
Get off me lawn!And I think you are senile...
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
And it was found, numerous times. there was nothing to bring her to trial for. She was careless, but it wasn't this huge disaster the Right wants it to be. With all the people getting in trouble over electronic use, I'm willing to bet the laws and regulations haven't been adequately updated in long time, if ever. But no one wants to see all these "dots" and connect them because they're too busy staring at Hillary. And that's also why I'm saying he's like the rest of the Republicans, who have wasted a lot of time and money trying to sue and legally challenge Obama time and time again.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If people broadened their scopes, they'd probably want damn near everyone in Washington down to city councils thrown in prison.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
So then wouldn't you have wanted the FBI, a presumed disinterested party, to investigate the matter instead of a biased party?
esmith
Veteran Member
Please explain what your are saying.
On one note. The police do not make a determination of presumed guilt or innocent, all they do is gather the facts and turn them over to the District Attorney who them makes a determination on whether to bring the person before a grand jury. Don't you think that is what the FBI should do?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Much as I relish the thought of putting corrupt politictions in places that they deserve, I'd still say there should be due process and a fair and impartial trial.
Then again I maintain the two sets of laws will still stand. After all, Hillary is a lawyer dammit !!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If you are saying if it went to the DOJ then nothing would have happened because then it would the AG's call, then wouldn't you want a different party to investigate it, one that is apparently unbiased or free of other claims that bring about this "not going to happen?"
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I think those titles are a little misleading, he said he'd have her situation looked into. I understand how the emotion of folks can turn that into dictating threats of jail by the "that's because you'd be in jail" remark.
I suspect that was a ploy to gain any vote possible by peaking the curiosity of potential voters. Most Hill'ian voters don't even like her, they just like Trump less.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Seems to be looking that way, unless well-timed legitimate emails come out on Hillary. If they are even legitimate and substantial enough to sway folks.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Your first line was absolutely perfect for this election.
He didn't exactly threaten to jail her. he wouldn't have that power.
He suggested that he would have whatever resources available to him to look into her case. It could be a waste of time and energy, like trying to impeach a president when he had sexual relations outside of his wife.
Sure it was morally wrong but did it require him to go through the whole impeachment process?
He suggested that he would have whatever resources available to him to look into her case. It could be a waste of time and energy, like trying to impeach a president when he had sexual relations outside of his wife.
Sure it was morally wrong but did it require him to go through the whole impeachment process?
At least there's some entertainment value now. I'm watching the debates over football. That's saying a lot.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I prefer the working with Russia, while overly-agressive and radical... Russia is helping take out a lot of Isis, whether it's for oil or whatever other interest also. Isis should have never formed in the first place by the country's poor choices.
Change for the sake of change, eh? Seen that before, and tragically, sometimes it turns out that the change you get is infinitely worse than the status quo you didn't like.
I am across the northern border of the U.S., in Canada, and as I watch, my emotions are not caught up in the circus. I can actually listen to the words that are being said, rather than hoping to hear the things I want to hear. And the Donald Trump that I see is not a nice vision -- he's a lout, an egotist, a bully, a serial liar who sometimes can't even figure out that he's lying, which makes him stupid. He lacks emotional maturity, he certainly lacks gravitas, he is without a moral conscience, which means that whatever he can get from holding the power of the presidency, he will get. And America -- I think I can promise this -- will not escape 4 years of him unscathed.
This election, in my view from another country, could really use a dose of rational thinking. Tragically, there are too many Americans who -- like you -- just want change. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
What do you perceive with Hillary?
I perceive that she has a lot of experience. I perceive that she is (as are we all) a flawed human being, but with many strengths -- not least of which is a very good head for policy, a work ethic that is at least admirable. I perceive that she made efforts as first lady to at least try to tackle health care (the country wasn't ready then). I perceive that she will follow many of the policies of the Obama administration. That may sound like a bad thing, but think about it for a moment -- what kind of economy did Obama inherit in 2008? And where is it now? What's the unemployment rate? Where's the dollar, around the world? How many people now have at least some kind of health care who previously had none, and no hope of getting any?
Complex problems often get less than perfect solutions, for the simple reason that they are so complex. As Hillary herself said, during the debate on the subject of health care, yes there are problems, yes there are costs that are running out of control. As Metis said, I think in this thread, does that mean that taking 20 million people off the roles of those eligible for some kind of health care a "good thing?" What did Trump offer? "Repeal it. Throw it out and do something else." What else? He didn't actually say, did he? Go back and listen to the debate again. That's all he said -- "toss it and do something else. Heck, I don't know what, but what could it hurt?" (I paraphrased and somewhat invented that last bit.) What could it hurt? Think about that for a moment, but instead of "what," consider asking "who."
Yeah, but does he know that?