• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Clinton Discussion Thread

yepyepwoah said:
Clintons are both clones at this point. Change my mind!
Click to expand...
Wut? how? did they 'accidently reveal themselves on camera or something' clones or not those fuckers are filthy rich.


I wish I was rich I would use the money to gain power and influence and then use that power and influence to help poor people and people in africa and places like that like hati..lol
 
Xorkoth said:
Sometimes I wonder if you're trolling, not usually, but the fact that this came out of your virtual mouth is astounding to me. "Anyone who doesn't believe as I do about this is unable to think properly and is posting propaganda". So, in other words, you're right, and anyone saying anything against this is a dangerous liar. Okay, wow, what's the point in even responding to you then? If you are trolling, you just pushed too hard, your bad. If not... damn, you've lost it dude.
Click to expand...
I think this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black frankly mate.
 
JessFR said:
I'm getting real tired of you considering it a fact that everyone behaves like you do.

If Trump had lost, I wouldn't be interested in still talking about him either.

And if you believe that it's a fact that I would be, that shows that your 'facts' are pulled out of your ass.
Click to expand...
Trump is old new no? I havent heard anyone really seriously talk about him you still hear about him and see his big organge face on tv but the energy and excitement (and hate) his apperance seemed to cause doesn't seem to be as strong now same as brexit well people like me anyway are just sick of hereing about it we brits should be focusing on we brits, our own country and affairs not the yanks or the Russians or the French or anyone else well actually maybe the French because we need them to keep the migrants out
 
I don't suppose we could compromise and say we should prosecute the whole lot of them?

Hillary, Bill, trump, Obama, Republicans, democrats, I say we bring the whole lot of them up on charges.
 
JessFR said:
I don't suppose we could compromise and say we should prosecute the whole lot of them?

Hillary, Bill, trump, Obama, Republicans, democrats, I say we bring the whole lot of them up on charges.
Click to expand...
but what has trump done?? And when i ask i dont mean stories that are half proven and half bul i mean what solid concrete thing that trump has 100% done that makes him deserve to be in a size 20 orange jump suit?

I am laughing from picturing trump in prison, because hes rich, and rich people dont go to prison
 
Ganjcat said:
but what has trump done?? And when i ask i dont mean stories that are half proven and half bul i mean what solid concrete thing that trump has 100% done that makes him deserve to be in a size 20 orange jump suit?

I am laughing from picturing trump in prison, because hes rich, and rich people dont go to prison
Click to expand...

Epstein was rich. And he managed to commit suicide in prison.
 
Yep, he committed suicide by convincing some thoughtful individual to garrote him, lol. Rest easy sweet prince
 
Ganjcat said:
but what has trump done?? And when i ask i dont mean stories that are half proven and half bul i mean what solid concrete thing that trump has 100% done that makes him deserve to be in a size 20 orange jump suit?

I am laughing from picturing trump in prison, because hes rich, and rich people dont go to prison
Click to expand...

You don't need absolute proof to put someone on trial, or to investigate.

That's WHY we investigate, to establish if there's been wrongdoing. And that's why we put people on trial. To determine guilt.

If you were required to be determined guilty before we could investigate, nobody could be investigated. Because it'd mean we would need to investigate to find the evidence to allow us to investigate. A catch 22.

So I reject the suggestion that the evidence needs to be any good at all. It can be crap. All its gotta be is enough to investigate to actually find out properly if there has been wrong going. And we've long past that point. For the whole freaken lot of them.

If you want we can find out wtf the clintons were doing on epsteins plane at the same time. :p

And no, rich people go to prison all the time.. It's just that they go to a separate rich people prison version of prison ;)
 
JessFR said:
You don't need absolute proof to put someone on trial, or to investigate.

That's WHY we investigate, to establish if there's been wrongdoing. And that's why we put people on trial. To determine guilt.

If you were required to be determined guilty before we could investigate, nobody could be investigated. Because it'd mean we would need to investigate to find the evidence to allow us to investigate. A catch 22.

So I reject the suggestion that the evidence needs to be any good at all. It can be crap. All its gotta be is enough to investigate to actually find out properly if there has been wrong going. And we've long past that point. For the whole freaken lot of them.

If you want we can find out wtf the clintons were doing on epsteins plane at the same time. :p
Click to expand...
The evidence, technically, has to be somewhat convincing to allow further investigation. Unfortunately, it is a technicality often overlooked by law enforcement
 
MonkeysOnEcstacy said:
The evidence, technically, has to be somewhat convincing to allow further investigation. Unfortunately, it is a technicality often overlooked by law enforcement
Click to expand...

There really doesn't. Provided law enforcement doesn't get in your way or go to the point of harrasment. They don't really need any evidence at all to investigate. All they need is reason for suspicion.

And regardless, these aren't criminal charges. The only consequence until the presidents out of office is the very act of removing him from office. That shouldn't require much evidence to investigate at all.

The police can spend years investigating before there's enough real evidence to charge anyone. You don't get to just be immune from investigation because there hasn't been an investigation to revoke that immunity.

The constitution empowers congress to conduct these investigations as they see fit.

You know what it sounds to me. It sounds like trumps defenders are trying to find a way to block any way to find evidence of wrong doing on the grounds that there's no evidence of wrong doing. So as to prevent the discovery of evidence of wrong doing.

You gotta have the investigation first, that's how you find out if there's sufficient evidence to take action.
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
You don't need absolute proof to put someone on trial, or to investigate.

That's WHY we investigate, to establish if there's been wrongdoing. And that's why we put people on trial. To determine guilt.

If you were required to be determined guilty before we could investigate, nobody could be investigated. Because it'd mean we would need to investigate to find the evidence to allow us to investigate. A catch 22.

So I reject the suggestion that the evidence needs to be any good at all. It can be crap. All its gotta be is enough to investigate to actually find out properly if there has been wrong going. And we've long past that point. For the whole freaken lot of them.

If you want we can find out wtf the clintons were doing on epsteins plane at the same time. :p

And no, rich people go to prison all the time.. It's just that they go to a separate rich people prison version of prison ;)
Click to expand...
no you dont need proof to investigate but you do need proof/evidence to know something for certain which we don't for example their isn't actually any solid evidencene that bill clinton raped that woman
 
Honestly Trump is similar to Epstein to me, in that he's someone who has a seemingly supernatural ability to avoid consequences for his actions
 
Why does the Clintons get a free pass but Trump doesn't? The Clintons visited pedo island without security detail, that is much much worse then anything trump has done. I have never seen so much hypocrisy then with the American Democrats . As an outsider it looks ridiculous to support a pedo island visitor and bash trump for saying "grab her by the pussy " your priorities are messed up
 
Lucy20 said:
Why does the Clintons get a free pass but Trump doesn't? The Clintons visited pedo island without security detail, that is much much worse then anything trump has done. I have never seen so much hypocrisy then with the American Democrats . As an outsider it looks ridiculous to support a pedo island visitor and bash trump for saying "grab her by the pussy " your priorities are messed up
Click to expand...

Seems you missed (or ignored) my earlier post. No free passes. I say investigate the whole lot of them. So long as we get to dig up everything there is to find about trump, you can investigate the clintons all you want as far as I'm concerned.

Sound fair?
 
That's exceedingly fair, except that the investigators are likely compromised.


And you are correct in regards to the investigative process in politics, I was thinking in terms of private citizens. Forgive me.
 
I have no love for the clintons and would be happy to see any and all of their crimes exposed too. But trumps the president. Which is why I'm far more concerned about his crimes.

If Trump had lost, I'd care a lot more about Hillary clintons crimes. But he didn't.

Id happily see the whole lot of them prosecuted. I just want the truth to come out. And I highly doubt any of them are clean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top