Hillary Clinton

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. That scum in the picture there are neither Republicans nor conservatives. They are terrorists, plain and simple.



Just ask this man.

 

This conservative Republican would say differently...

 

He's a piece of shit too, a special piece of shit to be exact. Not a conservative but a terrorist, and was both a democrat and a republican. Why are you doing this? Refuse like this does not represent any respectable person in the country. I was referring to the rabble that took to the streets because their candidate lost and they couldn't deal with it. We can go back and forth with this forever, but it does nothing to justify the actions of those who can't deal with reality. No responsible conservative did anything like that.

 

You find it rather easy to stereotype Democrats...Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot. Stereotyping conservatives is just as easy.

 

Time to choose a side.
http://is.4chan.org/pol/1484097350637.jpg
edit- meh

 

No, I never stereotyped Democrats. Just pointed out those who got out and caused trouble after the election because their candidate lost. They are just sore losers for the most part. I hate to lose at anything too, but I never participated in or instigated a riot over something ever. Are those that took to the streets rank and file Democrats and liberals? I hope not.

 

I think people who trash things and riot aren't there for "political" reasons...they are the disaffected, who see themselves as outcasts and see these "rallys" as an excuse to vent their frustration (a frustration borne from a shit life created by their parents and then their own inaction) and anyone who steals during these rallys are just thieves...the "normal" educated citizen doesn't have an urge to trash, bash or steal.

 

Are Trump supporters really Republicans and conservatives? Trump certainly isn't the latter and his membership in the former is from what I can tell a matter of convenience only.

Trump supporters beating up opponents or destroying their property has taken place on quite a few occasions though and predates his run for presidency. While he has maintained "plausible deniability" he has done nothing that I've heard of to limit such acts and some of his statements seem designed to incite/condone it.

 

Her mentor, O'Bama has just 9 days left to save her from jail? Would they plead "guilty" at the last moment to avoid imprisonment?

 

??? What are you talking about?

 

Sen. Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing Testimony Strengthens Case For Hillary Clinton Pardon

 

Usually a pardon is given after a person has been tried and found guilty in court of law. I must have missed the report on the trial.

 

Hillary is unlikely to ever be charged with a crime. Pardoning her would be a clear admission that she has actually committed a crime and would pretty well end any hope of future political office. I doubt she's ready to give up on that or that Obama is willing to go on records as to her actions being certifiably criminal. Especially in this short of time frame you simply aren't going to see it at least IMO and that pretty much assumes she's committed acts that she has a good chance of being convicted of and she's convinced that she will be both charged and convicted.

 

Not really: president Richard Nixon was granted a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States.

EDIT. What you claim is just reiteration of yet another O'Bama lie. That was his excuse for not pardoning Snowden. President can grant pardon before the charges were even pressed.

 

She shouldn't be allowed to enter any other state facility except federal jail.

 

The case there was a bit different though wasn't it? Every indication was that Nixon would be impeached and convicted as charged. Thus the pardon was a pretty clear admission of his guilt. At this stage it's not clear the Hillary is guilty or would be convicted if tried or will even be tried. So little reason for a pardon and some good reasons not to do so.

 

Indeed, there is just one difference: there is, obviously, no need to impeach Crooked Hillary. They may omit that step and go straight ahead to just press charges and convict her as charged. There is abundant evidence that she is guilty as Hell.

 

I'm guessing Slip, that you thought it would be harder...Less than 2 months ago.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

 

See US Supreme Court case: Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)