US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3896

On May 28 2016 04:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**.

*If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs.

** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage.

On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote:
What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes?

As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however.

On May 18 2016 17:44 Adreme wrote:


Uhhh I am actually curious what you read if you get high treason out of even the worst interpretation of whatever she did. I assume this is about the email thing which what she did was not even against the rules let alone the intentionally leaking of classified documents that you are basically implying happened which would be needed for treason.

Its not political connections its just that no crime was committed except for maybe a crime of poor judgement (though considering her email server seems to have held up better then the government one I would even cast doubt on that) and even then I just think it seems like a very overblown story. Basically you got baited by people who want to cast an image on someone (like how they admitted they set up a Benghazi commission to tank her numbers) and are letting the people with an agenda be the people who inform you.