HRC, guilt and innocence (split from Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground)

[Outrider]

So in three days time I have a decision to make. Roy Moore (R) or Doug Jones (D) for Alabama Senate seat. Due to the allegations against RM it is an easy decision (for me) to make. DJ will get my vote. Although there is no evidence against him and these 8 or 9 ladies have been sitting on this for a long time. I will in no way risk casting my vote for a predator. Is this fair to RM? Well if he is innocent (probably never know for sure) it isn't fair at all and that bothers me not in the least. Due to his aspirations he should expect this treatment and accept it gracefully. He should have stepped down.

So my question for those who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton is why didn't you feel the same way? Do you really believe she is innocent of all charges? I don't. Even if you think she is innocent on all counts how could you not take into account the large portion of U.S. citizens who think she is a crook and run another candidate?

Please do not let this devolve into a debate over HRC's guilt or innocence. If you want to do that one of us can open a thread.

Please just answer honestly and if enough people genuinely think she is innocent I will probably open that thread.

This harks back to the title (well half of it anyway) of the thread. Why doesn't truth matter? See when I talk to people in real life most of the time they agree that Trump or Clinton was a horrible choice. Then they justify their choice. 

I would like us to get where we just don't tolerate certain actions from our candidates. Cross this line and you are done. We can perhaps debate where the line should be but we need to have one.

If we do this I think we will see the middle ground is not so hard to find after all.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Outrider said:

So my question for those who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton is why didn't you feel the same way? Do you really believe she is innocent of all charges? I don't.

No, but she was clearly a better choice IMO, more capable, more qualified, more sensible, and more likely to make the world overall better than Trump. She didn’t get my vote in the primary, but once she won the primary it was a no-brainer to me. I grew up in NY and Trump was a known quantity, an obvious flim-flam man and con artist I’d seen operating scandalously and blowing smoke up peoples asses for decades. 

[MigL]

I was a supporter of H Clinton since she announced her candidacy.
She seems competent and capable ( although a bit of a sore loser ).
And seeing the joke that the President of the US has become, I guess I'm still a supporter and wish she had won.

I did grow somewhat disillusioned with her during the campaign though, not so much all that crap about the emails, but the DNC's 'fix' of the nomination process. If they are going to cheat at that, what else will they cheat at ( if H Clinton even knew about the 'fix' ); But I still would have voted for her. The fact that she lost cost me over Can$ 400, on lunch and drinks for the four guys I bet against

There were a lot of accusations levelled against her during the campaign, some as late as two weeks before the election, and people say 'where there is smoke, there is fire', but sometimes the smoke is just steam being let off during the heat of the campaign.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

There were a lot of accusations levelled against her during the campaign, some as late as two weeks before the election, and people say 'where there is smoke, there is fire', but sometimes the smoke is just steam being let off during the heat of the campaign.

You forgot about one small thing that was parotted for like four years. It rhymes with shmenghazi.

It might have even been half believable in history if only republicans where so needy for outrage, with Niger.

[MigL]

Yes, it was said the emails were deleted to 'cover' what she knew about Benghazi.
So, I believe I covered that.

[Ten oz]

14 hours ago, Outrider said:

So my question for those who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton is why didn't you feel the same way? Do you really believe she is innocent of all charges? I don't. Even if you think she is innocent on all counts how could you not take into account the large portion of U.S. citizens who think she is a crook and run another candidate?

 

Additionally look who is in power now. Those who opposed HRC control every branch of govt yet no charges are being brought against her. Meanwhile numerous members of Trump's campaign have  been indicted or already acknowledge  guilt in court. You may not like the thing Clinton did but she has already being put put to the screws for it and it has already been determined no crimes were committed. 

14 hours ago, Outrider said:

Do you really believe she is innocent of all charges?

She was investigated and cleared. So it is a statement of fact that the legal professionals empowered  to enforce the law believed she was innocent of any claims she had committed a crime. You may not like it but it is a fact all the same.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Outrider said:

So my question for those who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton is why didn't you feel the same way? Do you really believe she is innocent of all charges? I don't. Even if you think she is innocent on all counts how could you not take into account the large portion of U.S. citizens who think she is a crook and run another candidate?

Please do not let this devolve into a debate over HRC's guilt or innocence. If you want to do that one of us can open a thread.

Please just answer honestly and if enough people genuinely think she is innocent I will probably open that thread.

A huge difference here is that Moore has not been investigated for a crime (and owing to the statute of limitations, likely won't), and HRC was thoroughly investigated multiple times for her alleged crimes. And to claim there is no evidence against Moore is laughable. There are multiple eyewitnesses: the ones who have come forward.

I would also raise a distinction on the subject of innocence. In this context it's a false dichotomy. You can be guilty of one transgression and still not guilty of the transgression you are being accused of. I've seen some comments elsewhere describing Moore as a rapist, but I don't know that anyone has actually accused him of that (attempted rape, yes) So you can think of him as innocent of rape but not innocent of other charges. Same for HRC. 

[Outrider]

On 12/9/2017 at 7:22 PM, iNow said:

No, but she was clearly a better choice IMO, more capable, more qualified, more sensible, and more likely to make the world overall better than Trump. She didn’t get my vote in the primary, but once she won the primary it was a no-brainer to me.

Thank you for your honesty. I think that even in the primary she wasn't many democrats first choice but they thought she was more electable than Bernie Sanders. Plus the novelty of electing the first female POTUS.

Your comments are very representative of what I hear from others.

On 12/9/2017 at 7:22 PM, iNow said:

I grew up in NY and Trump was a known quantity, an obvious flim-flam man and con artist I’d seen operating scandalously and blowing smoke up peoples asses for decades. 

I didn't vote for him but I really had no idea how dangerous he would be. I also underestimated the stupidity of the GOP. I didn't think they would work with him like they have. I did watch an episode of the apprentice once so I knew he was a buffon but thats about it.

On 12/9/2017 at 8:09 PM, rangerx said:

Remember the moral majority thing? There are moral conservatives, several quite outspoken. Some not so much. Too many not at all. (To speak out against Trump)

Yes I agree wholeheartedly. If you know much at all about new testament Christianity its kind of obvious that many on the religious right are hypocrites. But wow have they doubled down with Trump. 

On 12/9/2017 at 8:09 PM, rangerx said:

Truth is, NOTHING rises above the hot water Trump and his cronies are in, at THIS TIME.

 

I hope you are right but I have thought the same thing about the Clintons many many times.

23 hours ago, MigL said:

There were a lot of accusations levelled against her during the campaign, some as late as two weeks before the election, and people say 'where there is smoke, there is fire', but sometimes the smoke is just steam being let off during the heat of the campaign.

These things go all the way back to the late 1970's at least. Many Clinton associates have been convicted over the years. If you are interested look up whitewater (15 convictions). Jim and Susan McDougal actually did time. Jim died of a heart attack in Fort Worth Penitentiary. Also look up Clinton cattle futures. Robert Bone was suspended three years and Refco was issued the largest fine to that date by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

 

14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

She was investigated and cleared. So it is a statement of fact that the legal professionals empowered  to enforce the law believed she was innocent of any claims she had committed a crime. You may not like it but it is a fact all the same.

You are correct l do not like it. Do you believe O.J. Simpson is innocent of murder? I don't. 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

And to claim there is no evidence against Moore is laughable. There are multiple eyewitnesses: the ones who have come forward.

Ok I should have said physical evidence. 

 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

In this context it's a false dichotomy.

I meant innocent of what has been alleged. 

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Outrider

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

 I meant innocent of what has been alleged. 

My objection still holds. HRC mishandled classified material, yet it was deemed not at a level where imprisonment was appropriate. Is she guilty or innocent? Moore dated teenagers as a thirtysomething, which is creepy. He is alleged to have committed offenses which cannot be prosecuted. Is he guilty or innocent?   

Quote

Ok I should have said physical evidence. 

But this artificially constrains the discussion. Not all crimes yield physical evidence.

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

You are correct l do not like it. Do you believe O.J. Simpson is innocent of murder? I don't. 

OJ was charged with a crime and prosecutors went after him in court. It was a jury (not experts) that let OJ walk. As Comey stated no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Clinton. So the two situation are not the same. Experts feel OJ was guilty. Experts feel Clinton is not. Even now that Trump's own appointees run the show Clinton isn't being charged. 

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

I meant innocent of what has been alleged.

From White Water to Benghazi to her Emails how many times has Hillary Clinton been investigated? How many times have you seen her under oath before Congress being questioned by Republicans? Her taxes going back decades have been made public, her charity financials made public, tens of thousands of her emails have been made public, and etc. I don't think you can name a single politician whom you have seen so much private information on; seriously. Everything has been combed through 10 times over and no crimes found. Despite the "crooked" reputation who is more transparent? You are complaining she deleted some emails before you got to read them as i it is normal to have access to a politicians private emails.....how many thousands of Paul Ryan's, Mitch McConnell's, Bernie Sander's, or etc private emails have you read? How you seen Trump's taxes?

This thread is about the truth and the truth is that investigators have looked into all the allegation those who oppose Hillary Clinton have made against her and found none to be a crime. That is a fact. 

8 hours ago, Outrider said:

Thank you for your honesty. I think that even in the primary she wasn't many democrats first choice but they thought she was more electable than Bernie Sanders. Plus the novelty of electing the first female POTUS.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton got more votes than Obama in the primary. The 17.8 million votes Hilary Clinton received in 2008 is the most votes any candidate of either party has every received in any primary. In 2016 she received 16.9 million votes which is third all time among all primaries for either party behind only herself and Obama in 08'. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

I did not vote for Clinton in the primary. I always vote for the most progressive candidate in the primary. In 08' I voted for Edwards (shame on me) in the primary. That said I able to aware that Clinton does have a popular brand. She was elected to the Senate, earned a massive number of primary votes, and did win the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million. Obviously millions of Democrats do like her and the arguments against that reality is merely meant to dismiss her and her supporters. I do not like Donald Trump yet never waste time arguing he isn't popular among conservatives; he clearly is. Meanwhile Clinton, who got millions more votes than Trump, is regularly said to be unpopular. I see that as a bit of propaganda. 

[rangerx]

8 hours ago, Outrider said:

Do you believe O.J. Simpson is innocent of murder? I don't.

The premise the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and a trial buy one's peers is lost on too many Americans.

It's greatly uncivilized to flip off right's to favor opinions on any matter and it's getting worse by the day.

 

 

As to OJ, Ron Goldman. He defended himself tooth an nail. He was strong, pumped with Adrenalin. The scene was a bloody mess and descriptive of struggle.  No way could OJ single handedly kill both, get in a vehicle leave merely one micro drop near a handle. Then go to a recital with his daughter, then catch a flight to Chicago.

Oh, the glove. I can't see the handle on the patio door when I go out at night, yet Mark Furman can see a bloody glove over a 10 ft wall. Riiiiiiight. A glove that had no holes. Yet the prosecutor claimed a cut OJ had on his finger was inflicted during the murders.

I don't doubt OJ knows who did it. That's why he was found guilty in the civil suit. He was extorted by gangsters... pay up or Nicole gets it and everyone will think you did it, kinda deal.

 

 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The premise the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and a trial buy one's peers is lost on too many Americans.

It's greatly uncivilized to flip off right's to favor opinions on any matter and it's getting worse by the day.

 

 

As to OJ, Ron Goldman. He defended himself tooth an nail. He was strong, pumped with Adrenalin. The scene was a bloody mess and descriptive of struggle.  No way could OJ single handedly kill both, get in a vehicle leave merely one micro drop near a handle. Then go to a recital with his daughter, then catch a flight to Chicago.

Oh, the glove. I can't see the handle on the patio door when I go out at night, yet Mark Furman can see a bloody glove over a 10 ft wall. Riiiiiiight. A glove that had no holes. Yet the prosecutor claimed a cut OJ had on his finger was inflicted during the murders.

I don't doubt OJ knows who did it. That's why he was found guilty in the civil suit. He was extorted by gangsters... pay up or Nicole gets it and everyone will think you did it, kinda deal.

 

 

The recital was before the murder but I don't want to go any deeper into the details. This thread isn't about OJ. That case was bought up to say not all people who beat charges are innocent as a response to Hillary Clinton not being convicted. In context it was inaccurate because Clinton was never even charged. 

[rangerx]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The recital was before the murder but I don't want to go any deeper into the details.

Thanks for the correction.

 

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This thread isn't about OJ. That case was bought up to say not all people who beat charges are innocent as a response to Hillary Clinton not being convicted. In context it was inaccurate because Clinton was never even charged. 

In which case, guilty is interchanged with uncharged and exonerated both without consideration of the premise of civility or justice.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Thanks for the correction.

 

In which case, guilty is interchanged with uncharged and exonerated both without consideration of the premise of civility or justice.

Fair point

[Outrider]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

My objection still holds. HRC mishandled classified material, yet it was deemed not at a level where imprisonment was appropriate. Is she guilty or innocent?

IMO guilty. HRC took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private server. This gave her a lot of control over her emails. A nice end run around the Freedom of Information Act.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Moore dated teenagers as a thirtysomething, which is creepy. He is alleged to have committed offenses which cannot be prosecuted. Is he guilty or innocent?   

Once again IMO guilty. But I am far less sure in this case however it is enough that I won't vote for him.

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

From White Water to Benghazi to her Emails how many times has Hillary Clinton been investigated? How many times have you seen her under oath before Congress being questioned by Republicans? Her taxes going back decades have been made public, her charity financials made public, tens of thousands of her emails have been made public, and etc. I don't think you can name a single politician whom you have seen so much private information on; seriously. Everything has been combed through 10 times over and no crimes found. Despite the "crooked" reputation who is more transparent?

And time and time again documents come up lost or misplaced. Time and time again both her and Bill first deny everything and then as evidence comes out explain it away.

 

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You are complaining she deleted some emails before you got to read them as i it is normal to have access to a politicians private emails

Yes I do have that right under FOIA. I have the right for someone other than the politician to go through and decide what is revelant and what is not.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Obviously millions of Democrats do like her and the arguments against that reality is merely meant to dismiss her and her supporters. I do not like Donald Trump yet never waste time arguing he isn't popular among conservatives; he clearly is. Meanwhile Clinton, who got millions more votes than Trump, is regularly said to be unpopular. I see that as a bit of propaganda. 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/212705/hillary-clinton-unique-no-post-election-image-gain.aspx

Quote

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are no more likely to view Hillary Clinton favorably than they were before last year's presidential election. Forty-one percent have a favorable view of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, within the 41% to 43% range Gallup has recorded since November.

The latest poll, conducted June 7-11, finds that a majority of Americans continue to view Clinton unfavorably (57%), as they have in all Gallup polls on the former first lady and U.S. senator since January 2016.

 

Perhaps we just have a different definition of popular.

7 hours ago, rangerx said:

The premise the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and a trial buy one's peers is lost on too many Americans.

The courts owe them that not me. I not only have the right I have the responsibility to judge those who run for public office. 

7 hours ago, rangerx said:

It's greatly uncivilized to flip off right's to favor opinions on any matter and it's getting worse by the day.

 

It wasn't that long ago you implied Reagan had some guilt in the Iran-Contra affair. What about his rights? You have also been all over Moore et al.

You didn't flip off anyones rights and neither did I.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Outrider said:

And time and time again documents come up lost or misplaced. Time and time again both her and Bill first deny everything and then as evidence comes out explain it away.

You didn't flip off anyones rights and neither did I.

And time and time again Republicans and FOX news outright lied about Hillary. Especially when it came to accusations. In every second breath, they'd drop the old "we have inside information from the FBI that Hillary Clinton is about to be indicted". When in reality, the FBI doesn't charge, the JD does.

Umm sorry, but going on about Hillary lies is just self defeating. She pales compared to the epidemic, serial stream of lies from the current president. It's absurd to bring up a bad example in the midst of a horrible example.

It's not just lies or one's right to free speech, it's a conspiracy of malicious prosecution and a conspiracy  of character assassination being perpetuated, even to this day. Americans are hung up on politics and free speech, at the cost of decorum, honesty and civility.

America is undergoing a Tragedy_of_the_commons

The resource being the US Constitution.

 

 

 

[Outrider]

6 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Americans are hung up on politics and free speech, at the cost of decorum, honesty and civility.

I think its more the fact we that we do not demand decorum, honesty and civility from our politicians. If we think they can get the job done we hardly even ask for a shred of dignity from them. Trump is the prime example on the right. But I don't have to look to hard to find them on the left as well.

Remember Anthony Weiner seven time democratic senator? He got caught sending women unwanted sexual pictures. He apologized and turned around and raised over 5 million dollars to run for mayor of New York.  Unsurprisingly he got caught again before he had a chance to be elected. Shame on those who supported him.

IMO we should voluntarily declare those who commit crimes unfit for public office.

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

IMO guilty. HRC took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private server. This gave her a lot of control over her emails. A nice end run around the Freedom of Information Act.

But you choose to strongly state her guilt, for something she might have done in your mind that multiple prosecutors couldn't prove and are certain doesn't exist. I didn't vote for her in the primary, but I think she is the victim of some far-fetched witch-hunts. For me, it's enough that she is part of the system that allows the extremist rich to take unfair advantage of everyone else, and I think her main opposition is simply a different set of extremist rich people who've conned you into demonizing her.

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Once again IMO guilty. But I am far less sure in this case however it is enough that I won't vote for him.

This is a big part of the problem. You're convinced about Hillary, but far less sure about the creepy Trump doppelganger. It seems you've forgotten how to be outraged at the deception. Think about it. You turn Clinton's control of her emails into an AUTOMATIC "end run around the FoIA", but Moore gets the benefit of the doubt despite all the testimony from victims. Hillary has been through the ringer and hasn't been charged as a criminal, and Moore has had a blind eye turned to his crimes because he was part of the system that would have investigated him. What are you "far less sure" about?

[Outrider]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think she is the victim of some far-fetched witch-hunts

I agree some of the accusations against her have just been made up out of thin air but others have not.

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

For me, it's enough that she is part of the system that allows the extremist rich to take unfair advantage of everyone else, and I think her main opposition is simply a different set of extremist rich people who've conned you into demonizing her.

Nobody is conning me. You stated very well what I am trying to illustrate. Both parties IMO are very corrupt at this point in time. Some days I think they always have been.

How do we change this?

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You turn her control of emails into an AUTOMATIC "end run around the FoIA"

No I'm pretty sure there are still active FoIA lawsuits out there and even if they are not I do know at least one group had to resubmit because the information they wanted was hidden on a private server. 

 

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Moore has had a blind eye turned to his crimes because he was part of that system. What are you "far less sure" about?

Because of the facts of the case and the timing of the allegations. Pleasantly surprise me and lay out a case for his guilt.

It looks like the voters of Alabama will not turn a blind eye tomorrow. Moore has lost his comfortable lead and is now trailing by ten points in the latest polling. I hope it holds.

Seriously Phi I think he probably is guilty but I also examine myself and find that some of the reason I feel that way is because I don't trust the uber wealthy. 

So please tell me why you are so sure Moore is guilty.

[rangerx]

44 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Remember Anthony Weiner seven time democratic senator? He got caught sending women unwanted sexual pictures. He apologized and turned around and raised over 5 million dollars to run for mayor of New York.  Unsurprisingly he got caught again before he had a chance to be elected. Shame on those who supported him.

One dick pic to an underage girl was all I needed to convince me he was an asshole and deserves what he got.

Conservatives are not introspective when it comes to their own kind, ever. Just license to double down.

 

12 minutes ago, Outrider said:

No I'm pretty sure there are still active FoIA lawsuits out there and even if they are not I do know at least one group had to resubmit because the information they wanted was hidden on a private server.

You do realize all the Trumps and their cronies use private email servers right? Why not scream that from the rooftops like you do about Hillary's perceived crimes?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/white-house-private-email-kushner-trump-bannon-priebus/index.html

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, Outrider said:

So please tell me why you are so sure Moore is guilty.

I used to hire off-duty Denver cops during Christmas to wander around an urban mall area to cut down on shoplifting, and I learned how tightly-knit the legal system is. The police and the prosecutors need to be tight to make sure they get it all right and put the bad guys away. They protect each other from scrutiny because they want to be effective at their jobs, and don't always see sexual assault as a crime with a victim.

The straw for me was all the stories from the time of Moore's alleged assaults, and how all the cops knew to keep ol' Roy away from the high school girls. It was common knowledge at the time he was 30 that he dated high school girls. And the topper for me was how his wife resorted to posting fake news to deflect from the accusations. Moore wants to stay in the game with a bad hand, and that means he's bluffing. He comes from the Trump mold of power and privilege, and he's just as used to lying as Trump is.

[Outrider]

26 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Conservatives are not introspective when it comes to their own kind, ever. Just license to double down.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/346339-gop-senator-to-trump-we-must-call-evil-by-its-name

Quote

 

Mr. President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism," Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) tweeted.

Very important for the nation to hear [President Trump] describe events in Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by white supremacists," Rubio said on Twitter.

The Senate's second-highest ranking Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), said not calling out neo-Nazis was personal for him, recalling his brother's death in World War II.

"We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home," Hatch tweeted.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/bob-corker-criticizes-trump-justice-department/index.html
 

Quote

 

"President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people's confidence in our institutions."

It is the third time in recent weeks Corker has been highly critical of the President. 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/364246-donors-furious-over-rncs-support-for-roy-moore-report
 

Quote

 

A top GOP operative criticized Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel's decision to support Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore during a recent dinner attended by party donors, Politico reported on Monday.

Bobbie Kilberg, an influential Virginia Republican, told McDaniel in front of the other donors that she was opposed to the move, according to Politico.

"There are some things that are more important than a vote in the Senate," Kilberg told Politico. "Some things are more important, such as what the party stands for."

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), told The Weekly Standard last week that the Senate GOP campaign arm "will never endorse" Moore.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Outrider

[rangerx]

Like that will have any bearing on anything? I doubt it.

All talk, but spineless to act.

[Outrider]

29 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You do realize all the Trumps and their cronies use private email servers right? 

From your link 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/white-house-private-email-kushner-trump-bannon-priebus/index.html

Quote

There was no indication that the White House officials who used personal email maintained their accounts on a private server 

 

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

he straw for me was all the stories from the time of Moore's alleged assaults, and how all the cops knew to keep ol' Roy away from the high school girls. It was common knowledge at the time he was 30 that he dated high school girls. And the topper for me was how his wife resorted to posting fake news to deflect from the accusations. Moore wants to stay in the game with a bad hand, and that means he's bluffing. He comes from the Trump mold of power and privilege, and he's just as used to lying as Trump is.

Ok color me pleasantly surprised. I am sure now and feel even better about my vote tomorrow. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Outrider said:

And time and time again documents come up lost or misplaced. Time and time again both her and Bill first deny everything and then as evidence comes out explain it away.

Your suspicion doesn't change the facts that law enforcement experts (prosecutors, judges, federal investigators) time and time again determine no crimes were committed. It isn't even partisan. One party controls all branches currently, potus is tweet shaming his own Justice Dept to at against Clinton, and still no charges. You are beating a dead horse. You can not name a single politician more thoroughly investigated in your lifetime.

 

2 hours ago, Outrider said:

Yes I do have that right under FOIA. I have the right for someone other than the politician to go through and decide what is revelant and what is not.

More gish gallop tactics. Put my comment in context by quoting the rest and answer the 2 questions asked immediately following what you quoted.

 

2 hours ago, Outrider said:

Perhaps we just have a different definition of popular.

You are playing games with context. You said:

" I think that even in the primary she wasn't many democrats first choice but they thought she was more electable"Like wise Clinton is very popular among Democrats. Claiming otherwise is just a bit of character assassination where everything Clinton must be referenced as a negative."

You implied that Democrats didn't actually like her. That was the context and I pointed out that no Democrat has ever received more primary votes than Clinton and that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. How unfavorable is Trump today in polling; worst ever for a first year President. Would you argue that means he is unpopular with conservatives? I think that would be silly as they are the ones who support him. Trump is very popular with Conservatives. Like wise Clinton is very popular among Democrats. Claiming otherwise is just a bit of character assassination where everything Clinton must be referenced in a negative light.