Should Hilary go to Prison???

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Right now, he's feverishly walking back the major components of his campaign in order to build any kind of support among congressional Republicans.

In other words, he conned you.

It's called compromise. Something we haven't seen in a very long time. Not surprised you didn't recognize it.

[David.Douchehurst]

Well, he din't git 'lected ta make friends wif tha ee-stablishment. He got 'lected ta blow it UP!

[helenasweets]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

It's called compromise. Something we haven't seen in a very long time. Not surprised you didn't recognize it.

A compromise? What fuck are you doing talking about? A compromise is when you done your due diligence With your proposal and then sit down with ypur colleagues, many of whom might disagree with you, to hammer out some version of your plan on n the interest of make my some progress as opposed to none. He was elected less than a week ago, hasn't even taken office. Who the hell is he compromising with? Himself? I mean, I get it. Yelling build that fence doesn't really get the masses frothing at the mouth like a wall. Sounds more like a field day sponsored by Home Depot.

[gfejunkie]

Somebody has to start the ball rolling. Heaven knows, people like you won't.

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by runtx3

If you go after her for a private server then you have to go after Colin Powell, jeb bush, condelliza rice, and others who have the the same thing.

Trump and his company has been order in the past by the court to had over emails in fraud investigations and he destroyed those computers to basically hide evidence of wrong doing.

Hillary has been investigated by the Republicans in Congress for bengazi. the invetigation supposedly cost 8 million of our tax dollars. when your enemies investigate you and find nothing then I say your innocent. that was a waste our tax dollars

Others may or may not have had servers alternative to the government one. But Hilary's problem is that she purged over 30,000 emails she was required to produce, and lied many many times to Congress and the FBI about dozens of issues related to the content of the emails and the server and her other devices.

Like I said before I don't think she should be prosecuted for the server, although others have been. But she must be prosecuted for lying to Congress and the FBI.

But prison like Martha Stewart is too much. It's enough punishment to have her publicly shamed and her reputation ruined by pleading No Contest and being given probation and community service.

And that will be yet another nail in the coffin of those out there who think she was a wonderful person who should have won the election. The result of the election would have been vindicated in yet another way.

[helenasweets]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Somebody has to start the ball rolling. Heaven knows, people like you won't.

You don't know me. I actually wish Trump well. I have to. I hope he does learn to compromise; I hope the sheer gravitas of the office opens up a space within him where some integrity and sense of what public service actually is can grow and flourish. Excuse me if I have issues with a man who began his political ambitions in earnest by riding on the coatails of our first black president by insisting that he show his papers. Integrity is not something I have seen here and being crass and insulting does not equal authenticity, as some believe. My issue with your calling this compromise is that the stepping stones to compromise with integrity involve or should involve having a well thought out idea that you have actually spent time and energy into vetting yourself, not just saying whatever it takes to win by encouraging outrage at the "other" who surely must be causing our lack of agency in life and then figuring out if any of this doable afterwards.

I appreciate Trump's galvanizing effect. There are many ways in which he has tapped into some vital problems that the left have abandoned. In fact, this is one of the smartest things I have read on the subect. It is well worth a read. https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many...-working-class

The nationalist right and the progressive left have some clear common ground; it's just that movements to the right end up losing themselves in it general vitriol towards the "other" that is completely unecessary, the same as the left tends to get stuck in boutique politically correct battles which are equally as alienating.

I just don't think Trump is the guy to do it simply because he has no ideas or experience (I know for most of his supporters this is seen as all good, but I firmly believe this blanket anti-establishment stance is misguided). He hasn't spent a lifetime considering these things or working towards anything that involves the complexity of the common good of roughly 365 million people. He just doesn't seem to be interested in policy. Of course, he is going to surround himself with establishment Republicans and let them take the mantle of actual policy; what else can he do?

Not for nothing, Obama did nothing but try and compromise for eight years. The firm answer was we will not work with you over and over again. I hope it's different this time; I hope we find a way. I fear that this will be the same supply side economics that has never had a real or beneficial result for the majority of people.

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by David.Douchehurst

Well, he din't git 'lected ta make friends wif tha ee-stablishment. He got 'lected ta blow it UP!

David,
I never read your posts because they're just too difficult to translate. This one I understand. In a sense, you're right. It's also known as negotiation...

Negotiation (Nee-go-she-a-shun). Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

You have to give a little to get a little. Read "The Art of the Deal" and you'll understand.

This is not going to be your ordinary Presidency. Believe me.

Look. Ever since Wednesday morning President-elect Donald Trump has been getting the exact same briefings that President Obama gets. Everything Obama knows, Trump knows. It might as well be a 'Co-Presidency' for the next two months. There's a reason for that. It's so that the next President can hit the ground running. Completely up-to-speed. Hell! For all we know, Trump may even already have the nuclear codes. Of course, we don't know that because that's a state secret. Something, apparently, Hillary never gave a shit about else she wouldn't have had an unsecured server in her house nor would she have told everybody and their God-damned dog that it takes four minutes to launch a fuckin' nuclear missile!

Whether you like it or not Donald Trump is going to be the 45th President of the United States. Quit whining and get used to it!

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by helenasweets

Obama did nothing but try and compromise for eight years.

Don't make me laugh. The ACA passed without any negotiation with nor input from the Republicans. That's why they all voted against it. There just wasn't enough of them to stop it. They got railroaded.

I remember Obama's words well... "Elections have consequences." And... "Republicans can come along for the ride. They just have to sit in the back seat." Well, welcome to the back seat!

[helenasweets]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Don't make me laugh. The ACA passed without any negotiation with nor input from the Republicans. That's why they all voted against it. There just wasn't enough of them to stop it. They got railroaded.

I remember Obama's words well... "Elections have consequences." And... "Republicans can come along for the ride. They just have to sit in the back seat." Well, welcome to the back seat!

T

You have a short memory. You mean Romneycare? The ACA has the DNA of the republican party all over it. As in most areas of life, the real story has a lot more nuance. An excerpt from an exceptional piece of reporting by the Atlantic below. The fact that republicans refused to vote for it indicative of something, just not the thing you think.

"The bill began in earnest in the senate with Max Baucus who signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working closely with an informal group of three democrats and three republicans.They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric by Grassley—talking, for example, about death panels that would kill grandma—and statements by Enzi that he was not going to sign on to a deal. The talks, nonetheless, continued into September, and the emerging plan was at least accepted in its first major test by the third Republican Gang member, Olympia Snowe (even if she later joined every one of her colleagues to vote against the plan on the floor of the Senate.)"

full link in case you are actually interested http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-birth/397742/

[gfejunkie]

Puhlease! You can't find a Republican finger print on Obamacare anywhere.

What Obama couldn't get from Congress he got through executive order...

The Iran deal... That sucked!
The Cuba deal... That sucked!

Some negotiator.

[helenasweets]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Puhlease! You can't find a Republican finger print on Obamacare anywhere.

What Obama couldn't get from Congress he got through executive order...

The Iran deal... That sucked!
The Cuba deal... That sucked!

Some negotiator.

Dude, stay focused. We're talking about the ACA. Did you read the excerpt I just gave you? It explains in detail how it most certainly did. The article outlines the process in its minutiae. I don't mind debate, but just repeating, "uh, no it didn't" is dumb.

[gfejunkie]

Did you find any Republicans that voted for Obamacare?

[helenasweets]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Did you find any Republicans that voted for Obamacare?

Oh my god. Can you not read? the whole point was WHY they didn't vote, dear. Good lord. Like having a discussion with the main character from Memento. Do you forget everything after fifteen minutes and have to start over? Geez.

[gfejunkie]

Los Angeles, huh? Figures.

I've already made my point that Obama doesn't give a shit about what Republicans think. Hillary would have been no better. You're the one that's flailing about with unrelated bullshit.

Now tell us why Hillary should or shouldn't go to jail.

[helenasweets]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Los Angeles, huh? Figures.

Wow. Just all I can say. You know you had an argument available there, but just didn't see it. I'll leave you to re-read the Art of the Deal. I didn't mean to break your brain with actual information.