Simple question for the HRC supporters:
Why do you want a second Clinton impeachment, in case
of her election?
You know that the House won't change, you know
that they will try to get all the info about her from
the FBI investigation, no matter whether they clear
her or not.
Do you rally look forward to that?
You really don't give a shit about anything in your post. Why are you wasting space on DU?
It was a huge huge distraction and waste of time last go round. 24 hour news will be unbearable.
The Clinton Foundation pay for play is going to be what does her in. That's all going to be available once the FBI has completed its investigation. More than likely she's will get a pass on the mishandling of classified information. The republicans will complain about that, but their real target will be the Clinton Foundation.
There are numerous "pay for play" deals that went down during HRC's SoS term.
They are documented. To me, and I am a Sanders voter, it seems very plain that there
was something going on. The Clinton Foundation is the charity that the Clintons donate to.
Just like hundreds of very questionable foreign people. Deals made with HRC as SoS
equaled million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation.
They were dropped by Charity Navigator for having an "atypical business model".
That would be the height of partisanship, and I have confidence that there's enough Republicans with a shred of integrity that'd prevent such a thing from passing.
There's also the very real possibility that the Dems retake the House this fall, which would render such shenanigans moot.
Please don't misrepresent a long wingnut's opinion as representative of the whole. There is also past precedent, where the House has explicitly declined to hold impeachment hearings regarding past offenses. Let your little finger do some googling of Schuyler Colfax and Spiro Agnew, you may be enlightened.
Bernie will be endorsing Hillary-start getting used to it
There are other more worthy issues to address, don't repeat thier garbage, it muddies the message needed..
There are court cases about the FOIA, and an
investigation by the FBI.
The question is rather: Do you realize that this
will happen, and does it matter to you.
there is not a lot of time to waste, Let that fog roll by, don't get lost in it...
being indicted or impeached on DU.
You are making DU harder to enjoy!
Your guy lost, get over it!
Should HRC win the nomination and it looks that
way obviously, I would rather see Kerry being the
one, who gets her delegates than her fighting it
The attacks on him are now old and not working
anymore, but he has shown himself as a great
SOS with excellent judgement.
impeached and acquitted of?
that happened while he was in office. Your reply asking about when the Paula Johns [sic] affair happened is immaterial as he wasn't impeached and acquitted for anything that happened back then.
...Bernie supporters should not be posting shit like this.
to the nomination- ain't happening
So we ought to cower and not upset our Repuke masters, is that how I should read the O/P?
I'll bet you don't like answering silly questions like that either.
I suppose you think that the "New" HRC will
not be attacked by the repugs, after you, of all
people condemned her so strongly in 08?
Get off your high horse, and look at the facts.
I'd rather see Kerry or Biden, both without all
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife
All of which is a long way of saying, you presuppose facts which are not only not in evidence they would be over a year in the future if they occur. So you pose a false dilemma to responders in order to serve your agenda.
pretty well. No, at this point I don't have an
agenda, but you as well as everybody on this
forum have a pretty good idea what the repugs
would or could do.
It is unimportant for any of us to assume guilt.
If you want to call it a warning of a preemptive
war, you would understand me better.
Allow me to rephrase the question as if I were a Sanders supporter asking your question:
"Why do you support Hillary if there's even a semi-credible chance that this email controversy could lead to a second Clinton president being impeached by Congress? Are you not concerned that a Republican-controlled House will stop at nothing to continue to exploit this FBI investigation? Don't you think this would stain the very office of the presidency? Do you rally look forward to that?"
Ok, I left in your "rally," but that is how I would have worded it.
And I would have answered that this email controversy so reeks of agenda and politics on the part of an already Republican Congress and very vocal and powerful Right Wing that has hated her for years, that I do believe they will stop at nothing. However, I also believe that Hillary, like Bill before her who refused to resign and retained his popularity, should stand up for her policies, her message, and what she can do for America in the face of that kind of bullying. If this were any other candidate, I might actually be able to relate to the strength of the question, had you asked it in the way that I rephrased it for you, but then I would come to my senses and realize that this is a candidate who has weathered so many false narratives written about her over the years that she's as tough a candidate as anyone who could ever face Trump and she's clearly not one to be shaken by controversy. If it turns out that she committed wrong-doing, then let her pay the price, but so many boys and girls have cried wolf about Hillary all these years with insane falsehoods ranging from Ron Brown's plane (can you hear it overhead GDP now?) to the most recent Illumaniti Guccifer, that it's hard to believe anything bad that's said about her. This is one candidate I'm the most willing to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to, because pretty much everything ever thrown at her hasn't stuck.
Not sure what you were trying to achieve, but I'm pretty sure it fell flat on its face.
I felt compelled to just get that out in the open.
and b) I would like to hear answers, which
are not there.
And c) I would like people to think about that
very probably scenario.
You're asking why we want Hillary impeached. Clearly we do not and clearly we also don't think she's going to be.
faux progressives, oligarchs- Cue the X Files theme
More people, according to recent polls, would now vote for Hillary in order to stop trump than would vote for her because they like her or her policies. The same is true on the other side for trump voters.
Both Hillary and Trump are viewed very negatively by independent voters. The Hillary dislike has been high for decades. The trump negatives are fairly recent and can be lessened by a smart campaign. Hillary is stuck, she just can't overcome that long standing negative situation. She's also the establishment, status quo candidate in a time when the establishments and status quo aren't popular.
Hillary's only hope is to successfully paint trump as so insane or unstable that he cannot ever be in a situation of power. That's going to be a hard sell.
Sanders, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by independents. He'd take some hits in the GE campaign but would be positioned infinitely better than trump or Hillary.
That's like asking us how long we've been beating our wives.
Who among Clinton's supporters have actually said they want an impeachment?
The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a sick GOP joke, as would be an impeachment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any Democratic President with a Republican House will be a target for impeachment; Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders included. For a Democratic President, impeachment is simply part of the job description.
The Clintons, because of their secrecy and casual interpretation of the law open themselves up to investigations time and again. Obama isn't anything like them. He never gave the republicans one plausible excuse for impeachment. Hillary, on the other hand, comes ready made with numerous areas for republican attack.
Doing that early on in Clintons Presidency would be a distraction to start and would end like the Gowdy Commission. We would gain political clout.
We should just let the Republicans choose or nominees based on how much we think they plan to attack/drag down our candidate & potential POTUS?
being loony impact my vote, I never would have voted for Obama.
I support HRC because I think she is the best candidate running. I voted for her in the primary and will do so again in the general election. If the Republicans choose to go on a witch hunt, then they do that. I can't control RW crazies and will never try to.
What I certainly won't do is vote a certain way to kowtow to them under the assumption that they're nuts.