What doesn't change? What are the great injustices?

Lives have gotten better and easier. The world has improved in more ways than it has worsened. Overall violence and harshness are down.

Life does go on and it's not that bad. Clinton will continue the slow pace of improvement and as long as we head in the right direction it'll be alright alright alright

What's funny is, if you ask anyone in Europe or Asia about Nixon, they don't think he's corrupt. They think it's very strange that we made such a big deal out of something so small.



Except, you know, the people did decide the nominations. If they didn't, Trump sure as hell wouldn't be the nominee. Clinton got like 55% of the vote...maybe more.

This post was edited by thundercock on Jul 3 2016 07:59pm

And yet the majority of the country wants neither as president. Something's off.

I'm not saying it's rigged if that's what you think I meant.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jul 3 2016 08:27pm

I agree that the US in a good place right now and that our lives are pretty good, but that's because the American people have fought and worked very hard over many generations to keep it that way.

The philosophy of "Eh, who cares. Life goes on. Shit doesn't change." is not one that previous Americans and leaders have employed to help ensure that this country is as great as it is. Ensuring that our country remains strong and prosperous requires vigilance, not indifference.

I challenge you to advocate for our leadership to be more transparent, more trustworthy and more responsible in serving the American public.

Our public servants should be held to high standards, and we should never accept a baseline level of corruption as being normal, unless we wish for it to become our new normal.



Should we hold our government officials to the same standards as some of the regimes in Asia? Is the hearsay of what people in Asia and Europe think about Richard Nixon a good defense of the wrongdoings or untrustworthiness of one of our major presidential nominees?

Do you think we should accept a certain level of corruption in our leaders as being normal?

Lastly, does our future president being involved in an ongoing criminal investigation alarm you in any way or is this just some vast Republican conspiracy against our new overlord?

It sounds like you just stupidly misread the post, inferring that I was calling all Republicans dumb, instead of correctly noting the contours of what happened with this case: everyone else of all ideological stripes and levels of intellect understood the basic legal process at work here: Democrats, Independents, NPPs, even smart Republicans who personally dislike Clinton. It was only the dumbest of Republicans who, time and again, got this basic process wrong.

The FBI cannot "lean toward indictment." The FBI can not indict someone. A grand jury would have determined Clinton's innocence had the FBI recommended charges, but they didn't because she was innocent on the merits. You could have known that about a year ago had you had better sources. Every statute the government could use against Clinton (including their past usage in court) from Title 18, Section 1924 to both 793(d) and 793(f) of the Espionage Act pointed to Clinton being innocent on the merits. Even if that weren't the case, the FBI couldn't magically judge her guilty.

I don't know why you linked to "conviction rate." You'd have been better off looking up "indictment" and studying how that process works before making the thread.

LOL'D

Warn: 10%

gonna need the deets on this when you get back

Stab in the dark.

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=74714234&f=119&p=505214790

how could this have happened.