US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jesse Jackson calls for Obama to pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office - even though he insists she hasn't done anything wrong

But I thought she didn't do anything, so didn't need any sort of pardon. Everything she did was "no story" or "Republican hype." What could she possibly need a pardon for?

Well, you need to ask Jesse Jackson. If Mr. Jackson is worried about a Republican witchhunt, a pardon would be insufficient, she'd need to given blanket immunity.

But she did absolutely nothing wrong, correct? Everything anyone has ever said about her was just a vast right-wing conspiracy the whole time, right?

Since she can't be impeached, the only way she might need a pardon is if she has to go to court, and since she didn't do anything ever then she will of course be found innocent.

 

[angelo]

Jesse Jackson calls for Obama to pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office - even though he insists she hasn't done anything wrong

But I thought she didn't do anything, so didn't need any sort of pardon. Everything she did was "no story" or "Republican hype." What could she possibly need a pardon for?

Well, you need to ask Jesse Jackson. If Mr. Jackson is worried about a Republican witchhunt, a pardon would be insufficient, she'd need to given blanket immunity.

Perhaps senor Jackson knows more to the story than he makes out!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, you need to ask Jesse Jackson. If Mr. Jackson is worried about a Republican witchhunt, a pardon would be insufficient, she'd need to given blanket immunity.

Perhaps senor Jackson knows more to the story than he makes out!

That would make him a part of the right-wing conspiracy.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, you need to ask Jesse Jackson. If Mr. Jackson is worried about a Republican witchhunt, a pardon would be insufficient, she'd need to given blanket immunity.

But she did absolutely nothing wrong, correct? Everything anyone has ever said about her was just a vast right-wing conspiracy the whole time, right?

Since she can't be impeached, the only way she might need a pardon is if she has to go to court, and since she didn't do anything ever then she will of course be found innocent.

Ford pardoned Nixon even though he had not been charged with anything. A pardon means not having to waste time and effort going to court. Now, maybe Mr. Jackson knows something we don't. Since you are questioning his rationale, you really need to either ask him or stop your babbling.

 

[skepticalbip]

But she did absolutely nothing wrong, correct? Everything anyone has ever said about her was just a vast right-wing conspiracy the whole time, right?

Since she can't be impeached, the only way she might need a pardon is if she has to go to court, and since she didn't do anything ever then she will of course be found innocent.

Ford pardoned Nixon even though he had not been charged with anything. A pardon means not having to waste time and effort going to court. Now, maybe Mr. Jackson knows something we don't. Since you are questioning his rationale, you really need to either ask him or stop your babbling.

Nixon did violate the law, he destroyed evidence by erasing 18.5 minutes of tape and the Democrats were about to drag him into court on charges. Ford knew he was guilty of destroying evidence and would be convicted if there was a trial. The claim for Clinton is that she committed no crimes so there should be no reason for a pardon. A pardon will leave a cloud, a belief that she is actually guilty. A trial, if charges are ever made, will remove the cloud by proving her innocence.

 

[fast]

Ford pardoned Nixon even though he had not been charged with anything. A pardon means not having to waste time and effort going to court. Now, maybe Mr. Jackson knows something we don't. Since you are questioning his rationale, you really need to either ask him or stop your babbling.

Nixon did violate the law, he destroyed evidence by erasing 18.5 minutes of tape and the Democrats were about to drag him into court on charges. Ford knew he was guilty of destroying evidence and would be convicted if there was a trial. The claim for Clinton is that she committed no crimes so there should be no reason for a pardon. A pardon will leave a cloud, a belief that she is actually guilty. A trial, if charges are ever made, will remove the cloud by proving her innocence.

That makes sense, but like the benefit of a cure for a disease not contracted, though small, still outweighs the inconsequential cloud that is smaller still. It's a just-in-case cigarette in a glass tube. No need for a get out a jail card for one that did nothing wrong, but it's not guaranteed by all shadow of doubt that she's innocent--or that fabricated evidence might show up. It's seems to be an unnecessary risk to throw away the last of three wishes just because one has vowed to lock the Jeanie up forever. Things happen, and it's best to be unnecessarily protected from that which one has no guilt--unless this cloud is potentially more harmful--but then again, a pardon to which might never come of use seems to better guarantee piece of mind than a cloud can wreak havoc.

 

[angelo]

No charges :as yet: have been announced, but she was criticized for her careless use of her private server in emailgate! She has also lied through her teeth about being a feminist when she has accepted donations from Islamic countries where the females, not to mention human rights are a joke!
I'd throw her in jail for that, because had she been anyone else she would be!

 

[DrZoidberg]

She has also lied through her teeth about being a feminist when she has accepted donations from Islamic countries

Wait, what? How is her feminism a problem here? Feminism is a pretty vague concept. It can be interpreted as just being about woman being allowed to assert themselves no matter what. It can be a feminist act if a woman decides not to be a feminist. Any woman is allowed to redefine what feminism means to them. That's kind of the point of feminism.

 

[skepticalbip]

She has also lied through her teeth about being a feminist when she has accepted donations from Islamic countries

Wait, what? How is her feminism a problem here? Feminism is a pretty vague concept. It can be interpreted as just being about woman being allowed to assert themselves no matter what. It can be a feminist act if a woman decides not to be a feminist. Any woman is allowed to redefine what feminism means to them. That's kind of the point of feminism.

In other words you are saying that feminism doesn't mean anything? A word that can mean anything is a word that has no meaning.

 

[fast]

Any woman is allowed to redefine what feminism means to them.

And doing so does not alter the lexical definition; it just creates multitudes of stipulative definitions----altering the lexical definition not one iota; well, maybe an iota, but not immediately so.

A word that can mean anything is a word that has no meaning.

I agree with the spirit behind what I think you're trying to say, but how you say it leads me to argue that a word that can mean anything can mean MORE than ONE thing, not LESS than ONE thing.

 

[lpetrich]

... She has also lied through her teeth about being a feminist when she has accepted donations from Islamic countries where the females, not to mention human rights are a joke! ...

You're complaining about that?

I think that she has good feminist credentials. Look at what she supports and votes for.

There’s a Strong Feminist Case for Hillary Clinton | Al Jazeera America

When it comes to women’s rights specifically, Clinton has real experience and a track record. She has long been in favor of abortion rights, occasionally moderating her rhetoric to capture a wider audience. (Despite what some might contend, embracing her husband’s line that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” is hardly an anti-abortion stance.) She came out in support of both repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion care for low-income women, and for U.S. funding for abortion care for rape victims in conflict zones — not exactly positions with a ton of historic popularity among mainstream politicians. She has the backing of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America, the biggest pro-abortion-rights groups in the country. If you’re still not convinced, watch this video of Clinton testifying before Congress about reproductive rights. Those are hardly words of an inadequate pro-abortion-rights candidate.

Clinton has also been an advocate for paid family leave, a child care tax credit and universal prekindergarten, all issues that would make an enormous difference in the lives of women and their families — especially low-income women, including working-class millennial women who, unlike their wealthier counterparts, are more likely to forgo college or have children earlier or without a husband.

A Reason to Vote for Clinton: Liberal Voting Record - Greta Christina's Blog

Yes, you heard me. Clinton has a very liberal voting record. Her voting record in the Senate had a 75% rating from the ACLU, a 90% rating from the Sierra Club, a 94% rating from the AFL-CIO, a 95% rating from the HRC, a 96% rating from the NAACP, a 100% rating from the National Organization for Women, a 100% rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL.* As Senator, she voted with Bernie Sanders 93% of the time. She was rated the 11th most liberal member of the Senate; Roll Call described her as “center-left,” while On The Issues rates her as a hard-core liberal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wait, what? How is her feminism a problem here? Feminism is a pretty vague concept. It can be interpreted as just being about woman being allowed to assert themselves no matter what. It can be a feminist act if a woman decides not to be a feminist. Any woman is allowed to redefine what feminism means to them. That's kind of the point of feminism.

In other words you are saying that feminism doesn't mean anything? A word that can mean anything is a word that has no meaning.

The bolded bit isn't anything. The point is that it should be up to women to decide what behaviour is considered socially acceptable or not. Both as regards as to themselves and how they judge others. It's about passing judgement. Or rather, not passing judgement. That is something.

On top of that there's a million and one versions and variants who it's a nightmare to keep up with. And it's a bit confusing when different types of feminists bash each other for behaving unfeministically, and completely ignoring the most fundamental tenet of feminism.

 

[angelo]

You're complaining about that?

I think that she has good feminist credentials. Look at what she supports and votes for.

There’s a Strong Feminist Case for Hillary Clinton | Al Jazeera America

When it comes to women’s rights specifically, Clinton has real experience and a track record. She has long been in favor of abortion rights, occasionally moderating her rhetoric to capture a wider audience. (Despite what some might contend, embracing her husband’s line that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” is hardly an anti-abortion stance.) She came out in support of both repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion care for low-income women, and for U.S. funding for abortion care for rape victims in conflict zones — not exactly positions with a ton of historic popularity among mainstream politicians. She has the backing of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America, the biggest pro-abortion-rights groups in the country. If you’re still not convinced, watch this video of Clinton testifying before Congress about reproductive rights. Those are hardly words of an inadequate pro-abortion-rights candidate.

Clinton has also been an advocate for paid family leave, a child care tax credit and universal prekindergarten, all issues that would make an enormous difference in the lives of women and their families — especially low-income women, including working-class millennial women who, unlike their wealthier counterparts, are more likely to forgo college or have children earlier or without a husband.

A Reason to Vote for Clinton: Liberal Voting Record - Greta Christina's Blog

Yes, you heard me. Clinton has a very liberal voting record. Her voting record in the Senate had a 75% rating from the ACLU, a 90% rating from the Sierra Club, a 94% rating from the AFL-CIO, a 95% rating from the HRC, a 96% rating from the NAACP, a 100% rating from the National Organization for Women, a 100% rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL.* As Senator, she voted with Bernie Sanders 93% of the time. She was rated the 11th most liberal member of the Senate; Roll Call described her as “center-left,” while On The Issues rates her as a hard-core liberal.

Are you seriously using this news site to bolster your argument?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So, if Trump voters wanted something different, why is McCain back in office? Grassley? Why is Newt Gingrich likely to play a large role in a Trump administration? Why are they likely going to get a Paul Ryan budget? Methinks they're not going to get much different than standard Republican establishment.

They're going to be disappointed when a wall doesn't get built, because it'd be ridiculously expensive to build and patrol and likely wouldn't solve the problem anyway. They're going to be disappointed when ISIS isn't destroyed in the first month with Trump's genius plan that's better than anything the military generals have ever thought up. They're going to be disappointed when they lose their health insurance and can't get a new policy due to their pre-existing condition or get a crappy one from another state. I think there will be even more disappointment than the progressives had with Obama.

But they won't be able to sue, like the attendees of Trump University.

I think you underestimate the degree to which Trump supporters are willing to excuse Trump's behaviors. And anway they'd blame it on the democrats, because the democrats are going to be blocking things, at least that's the assumption. In their eyes the only bad thing Trump can do is convert to Islam or something like that.

 

[laughing dog]

Ford pardoned Nixon even though he had not been charged with anything. A pardon means not having to waste time and effort going to court. Now, maybe Mr. Jackson knows something we don't. Since you are questioning his rationale, you really need to either ask him or stop your babbling.

Nixon did violate the law, he destroyed evidence by erasing 18.5 minutes of tape and the Democrats were about to drag him into court on charges......

Your response is offpoint - see the bolded part. Moreover, the destroyed tape was not a real problem for Nixon - his role in the Watergate burglarly and subsequent coverup was. Furthermore, the Democrats were not dragging anyone to court. The special prosecutor had made no decisions.

Ford knew he was guilty of destroying evidence and would be convicted if there was a trial. The claim for Clinton is that she committed no crimes so there should be no reason for a pardon. A pardon will leave a cloud, a belief that she is actually guilty. A trial, if charges are ever made, will remove the cloud by proving her innocence.

Nonsense. Trials do not necessarily remove clouds even when found not guilty.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nixon did violate the law, he destroyed evidence by erasing 18.5 minutes of tape and the Democrats were about to drag him into court on charges......

Your response is offpoint - see the bolded part. Moreover, the destroyed tape was not a real problem for Nixon - his role in the Watergate burglarly and subsequent coverup was. Furthermore, the Democrats were not dragging anyone to court. The special prosecutor had made no decisions.

How off topic? I was responding to the comparison made between Nixon and HR Clinton.

The Congress investigation had no hard evidence that Nixon had anything to do with the break-in. That is why the 18.5 minutes of tape was important - they were pretty damned sure that what was on there would have been hard evidence. Given that they were deprived of that, they were in the process of writing up impeachment papers for destruction of evidence (a crime). This is the first step necessary to press criminal charges in court which they were also preparing. Nixon was informed of this so he resigned before the impeachment after making the deal with Ford for a pardon.

Ford knew he was guilty of destroying evidence and would be convicted if there was a trial. The claim for Clinton is that she committed no crimes so there should be no reason for a pardon. A pardon will leave a cloud, a belief that she is actually guilty. A trial, if charges are ever made, will remove the cloud by proving her innocence.

Nonsense. Trials do not necessarily remove clouds even when found not guilty.

Not necessarily but a pardon certainly does place a hell of a dark cloud of suspicion (see the Nixon case).

 

[lpetrich]

There’s a Strong Feminist Case for Hillary Clinton | Al Jazeera America

Are you seriously using this news site to bolster your argument?

That was one of many sources that I could have linked to. Seriously, Angelo, do you have ANY evidence that she votes like Phyllis Schlafly? If she did, then I don't think that she'd be worthy of being called a feminist.

 

[Terrell]

IMO pretty much everyone who cares about this issue has already made up their minds as to whether or not HRC is guilty of a crime. I don't think a trial, a pardon, or little else will change the minds of any partisans. People who didn't care to check this out before may, or may not, be swayed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No charges :as yet: have been announced, but she was criticized for her careless use of her private server in emailgate!

Yeah, meanwhile Trump settled at a $26 million fraud case about a fake school he ran.

EMAILS!!!!

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, if Trump voters wanted something different, why is McCain back in office? Grassley? Why is Newt Gingrich likely to play a large role in a Trump administration? Why are they likely going to get a Paul Ryan budget? Methinks they're not going to get much different than standard Republican establishment.

They're going to be disappointed when a wall doesn't get built, because it'd be ridiculously expensive to build and patrol and likely wouldn't solve the problem anyway. They're going to be disappointed when ISIS isn't destroyed in the first month with Trump's genius plan that's better than anything the military generals have ever thought up. They're going to be disappointed when they lose their health insurance and can't get a new policy due to their pre-existing condition or get a crappy one from another state. I think there will be even more disappointment than the progressives had with Obama.

But they won't be able to sue, like the attendees of Trump University.

I think you underestimate the degree to which Trump supporters are willing to excuse Trump's behaviors. And anway they'd blame it on the democrats, because the democrats are going to be blocking things, at least that's the assumption. In their eyes the only bad thing Trump can do is convert to Islam or something like that.

But they'll still be disappointed. Regardless of whatever reason is put out that their desires haven't been met by the one person who said he could fix it.