SabresFanInRochester

Joe - it looks like you missed the post. You can be pardoned prior to conviction. And, as freeman is pointing out, she certainly has broken the law. It's a question of what action was taken following the investigation. The FBI said (paraphrasing) that although what she did was illegal, we don't think it was intentional. And I might be giving her too much credit with that paraphrase, but the point is there was nothing actionable to the DOJ from the FBI back in June/July. Wouldn't you think the FBI, CIA, Secret Service would all have an inside look at people, more so than the general public. If the FBI is so against her, as the article claims, doesn't it make you think -- 'maybe they know something I don't,' or 'all this stuff I am hearing about her from Conservative sources and Republicans seems to be echoed by this base of people.' But it just keeps getting pushed off as allegations and smear campaign.

I agree but I think it extends beyond fringe groups. Most recent, the Tea Party was able to stir things up, and I would call that frindge. Back in the day of the Framers, I bet there were very differing views about how to proceed. And I would imagine the electorate was fed up with it too as each party had a rotational share at the mother teat.

I believe that is correct in that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation has been ongoing for over the past 12 months.

That's not completely true. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html I believe Nixon was pardoned by Ford before actual conviction. (Yes, the above link points that out.) Worst job in the world. Also, the most powerful.

At the end of the day, we pull back together and root for the Sabres. We have common ground. And since our Country was founded, these conversations have been occurring. We both view the opposing candidate as the anti-Christ who will ruin/end America, but those words have been said every 4 years for hundreds of years. I think you will all enjoy Trump as President. :P

Thank you for the clarification. Some of the rebuffs regarding allegations against Clinton have almost led me to believe they have not been proven.

None of Trump's allegations demonstrate he would do that. The very allegations against Hillary are for the things you are worried about Trump doing. The allegations are that Hillary has done that, which would project a pattern to repeat that behavior. Yet, you are only concerned about Trump behaving this way.

I disagree. You are giving the GOP electorate too much credit. They had a majority and still let Obamacare in and did not repeal it. When Bush left and allocated "too big to fail grants" nothing was done to fight it. They have demonstrated (with the exception of filibuster) that they do not gridlock Democratic agenda as much as their constituents would like. That's the way politics work. I think it is pretty close to a certainty that it happens. Do you understand that those are allegations against Trump? To the same extent that you are telling me that they are merely allegations against Clinton. What is the difference? Why is it preposterous to think only the other candidate is doing that stuff? Trump as a civilian -- what could he really do to impact the security of the US? I don't doubt he is finding loopholes and creating alliances and business deals in typical business fashion, but it doesn't involve leading coups and providing influence based on a position of political power of the United States. :w00t:

Very different. A class or seminar that charges admission, is very different than pay-to-play as Secretary of State. There is nothing proven here, but at its simplest form, doing business in Russia is treason?

Trumps alleged crimes are not against the Country.

One of my favorite memories of recent years! Another is Eichel's last minute alley oop in OT from Kane -- we can relive that when Carolina is on the calendar though.

You answered it yourself. For you to first profess that the iPhone will cease to exist is preposterous. I get it, but I wasn't going to continue when basic concepts were not grasped. You are very opinionated to the extent that when someone else has an opinion, be it abortion, the economy, or people, you are always right and they are wrong -- I am guessing you have heard this from maybe just one or two people in your life? If you are all-knowing, what are you doing with your life?

No

You really don't think an iPhone could be made in the US? Apple is great at finding the least expensive of everything including labor. So they take their $50 iPhone 7 and sell it for $600. You think if it cost $10, $20, even $50 more due to labor, it would cripple Apple or cause a spike in the cost of iPhone 7s? Not necessarily -- do you provide a service? There could be more disposable income to spend towards your service and you have more earnings opportunity (or at least your company does.) If you produce a tangible good, will there be more demand for your product? Globally, the cost of goods might increase, but there would be an accompanying bump in pay as productivity increases. You keep reverting to name calling. Is that the best you can do in a debate? Are you George Costanza? You don't have to be just an importer... you can be an exporter too. So you can still work on the dock. And if raw materials are being used here instead of overseas, they are still be produced. If you have to pay more for domestic steel but the cost of cheap imported steel is the same price due to tariffs, you actually just added jobs to raw materials suppliers.

The world needs ditch diggers too, you know. True. Unfortunately, Fair and Balanced Fox represents the other side. I watch it but I take it with a grain of salt (at least I try to.) I always thought the truth was somewhere in the middle of the networks message. Try the BBC for impartial international news.

Your first sentence is right but you need to keep working through the exercise. If the cost of foreign imports goes up, there is an opportunity created for US manufacturing. Goods are produced domestically, which means job creation and wages. There is more buying of raw materials, more consumerism, and more money entering the system creating more disposable income. Job creation is a big part of turning around an economy. Growth in the US is stagnant. Too many people are unemployed, regardless of what unemployment numbers reflect. This is the solution, IMO.

Coincidentally, I just saw Hillary's rally. She was very entertaining. Wait, no, I was watching "Weekend at Bernies." Nevermind.

Excellent point on the Constitution. I give you props for that one. The amendments are pretty short and to the point. I don't think you'd get that with reform of Obamacare. You cannot say it was "always known that premiums would increase" as Obama himself said that families would see a decrease in their premiums. And the first couple of years doesn't work. There is a fundamental problem in that the base of payers that was necessary are not paying. More time on the current path is not going to magically fix the issue. You cannot pass the buck to problems being a healthcare issue -- the whole story behind Obamacare was the magic to fix healthcare: Your premiums would decrease, and you can keep your doctor. WRONG on both accounts. I do not disagree with you that the 20 million people who were not covered should have coverage in some form, but Obamacare was not/is not the answer.

I think the story is very accurate! Aliens are attacking us because of global warming -- no doubt!

That's a great read -- here's another one: http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/37178/nasa-confirms-alien-invasion/ Media Business in 2015: How credible are articles on vox.com? https://www.quora.com/Media-Business-in-2015-How-credible-are-articles-on-vox-com Compared to articles on other news websites? Answer Michael Lee, Public Policy AnalystWritten Feb 17, 2015 Vox has a basic credibility problem, one resulting primarily from its boldly-stated mission to "explain the news." Turns out that it's harder to do that than they thought. Vox represents an interesting journalistic concept, and it made a big splash in policy circles when it debuted in the spring of 2014. Dedicated to "explanatory journalism" (but I repeat myself), Vox's reporters aim to add context to undercovered policy stories, discuss the biggest political stories of the day, and otherwise bring more data and details to discussions on any number of topics. While I haven't seen specific numbers on their page views, I understand that Vox attracts significant traffic every day. But their first year was a rough one. Vox's reporters don't claim journalistic objectivity - they're often commenting along with their explanations - and their broad portfolio has led them into some comically bad mistakes, ones documented in painful detail by Deadspinlast December: ... [Even when Vox doesn't technically make mistakes, their model ensures that, far from explaining the news, they actively misinform readers. ]

My good man, I am glad you stuck around the political board. We will not agree on how changes in healthcare will occur, but we both agree that changes are necessary. I view it like the IRS -- do we just reform the tax codes, or scrap it and start over again with simpler language. I think when you start to tweak and amend, you end up with expansion of the language with more complexity and confusion than is necessary.

There is no more name calling by Trump or his campaign than there is on this message board (racist, misogynist, dummy, ...) or by Hillary's campaign. LGR -- You mean Obamacare? It was jammed down our throats. It was passed in a manner that Democrats would still be crying in their Cheerios if that happened to them. Critics said it wouldn't be able to pay for itself, premiums would increase (not decrease), and it would waterdown healthcare. Glad we were able to appeal to 20 million people at the expense of 300 million. There was a better way. Time to scrap that plan and start over.

I think we were on the cusp of having a legitimate political conversation. W infuriated me at the end of his term. It's okay to be upset with decisions a leader makes; regardless of their political affiliation. I don't have to pretend to like Obama because he is our President. I don't have a bumper sticker that says "Don't blame me, I voted for x." But do I have to be happy with Obamacare because it passed and is law? No -- horrible piece of legislation. I think this is a lay-up. You really believe he has no interest or ability to impact the business side of government? Admirable gesture to donate to a charity -- deal accepted. To say the "entire campaign" is of course a fallacy. But, I do agree with you. "Make America Great Again," 'we lose at trade,' and 'we are going to win in China,' is overdone. Digging deeper than that, his vision for SCOTUS justice, trade, and political reform appeal to me. I am not pro-Trump, nor do I have a sign on my front yard or campaign for him, but I absolutely want Trump to win. There is no way Hillary can be allowed behind the wheel -- friends don't let friends do that stuff.

So you're saying he is brainwashing "baskets of deplorables" and is going to make money off of it? I don't think so. Hillary has ruined it for anyone trying that game. She could have been a little more discrete but now we have an FBI investigating political and charitable fraud. Pay to play had worked for centuries -- Hillary had to ruin it for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised to see Donald drop out of the race knowing he cannot get away with this one. Yes, and misogynist! Seriously, when things start to look bleak, start name-calling. oh, oh, oh... stupid Republicans is another good one.

Why not? No offense taken. I can relate to the following: If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain -- These aren't my words. This is some French guy. Maybe the French aren't so bad after all...