Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

What gives?

Why waste time with your board spam?

There were known leaders of crime families in NY that were known to be leaders of criminal empires, yet they were not locked up right away and roamed free for years. Maybe it takes time to put the case together with ironclad evidence. Alternatively, a more cynical view is that he "can't" pursue her because she's "too big" in the political world to indict. I would bet large sums of money that over 80% of our elected officials today could be indicted for various white collar crimes, convicted and sent to prison. However, their political connections prevent that from happening because the majority of them would also go down the same path.

Unfortunately, there are different sets of rules for different classes based on what I can see. Contrary to what it looks like on the surface, the U.S. does have a noble class that is separate and distinct from the everyday lower classes that we are.

Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

(11-02-2017 06:57 AM)miko33 Wrote:  There were known leaders of crime families in NY that were known to be leaders of criminal empires, yet they were not locked up right away and roamed free for years. Maybe it takes time to put the case together with ironclad evidence. Alternatively, a more cynical view is that he "can't" pursue her because she's "too big" in the political world to indict. I would bet large sums of money that over 80% of our elected officials today could be indicted for various white collar crimes, convicted and sent to prison. However, their political connections prevent that from happening because the majority of them would also go down the same path.

Unfortunately, there are different sets of rules for different classes based on what I can see. Contrary to what it looks like on the surface, the U.S. does have a noble class that is separate and distinct from the everyday lower classes that we are.

So Trump, despite being POTUS, his party holding congress, and literally leading the chant "lock her up" during his campaign, just doesn't want to or isn't able to do prosecute Clinton? What is that based on, besides speculation?

And wouldn't the skeptical position be "he clearly cannot charge her with any crimes and is just using the issue to excite his base"?

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

Then what’s your “genuine question”?

Why hasn’t Trump locked her Up?
THAt’s your genuine question? And you ask whether that comes across as spam, or otherwise mindless drivel?

Get up, go take a lap, then come back and talk to us when you have something, anything, of worth to offer.

Thx!

(11-02-2017 07:06 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:57 AM)miko33 Wrote:  There were known leaders of crime families in NY that were known to be leaders of criminal empires, yet they were not locked up right away and roamed free for years. Maybe it takes time to put the case together with ironclad evidence. Alternatively, a more cynical view is that he "can't" pursue her because she's "too big" in the political world to indict. I would bet large sums of money that over 80% of our elected officials today could be indicted for various white collar crimes, convicted and sent to prison. However, their political connections prevent that from happening because the majority of them would also go down the same path.

Unfortunately, there are different sets of rules for different classes based on what I can see. Contrary to what it looks like on the surface, the U.S. does have a noble class that is separate and distinct from the everyday lower classes that we are.

So Trump, despite being POTUS, his party holding congress, and literally leading the chant "lock her up" during his campaign, just doesn't want to or isn't able to do prosecute Clinton? What is that based on, besides speculation?

Yes, I'm speculating. However, IMHO my speculation on the matter makes a lot of sense. Besides, I'm sure you've heard of the notion of throwing red meat at the base to amp up their enthusiasm. That's smart politics considering the object of the accusations is a lightning rod of controversy coupled with a sour personality. I strongly believe that HRC and WJC have both committed crimes that carry prison sentences. However, I think they are too well plugged into the Washington power complex to ever get indicted let alone tried and convicted.

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

Genuine question?

(11-02-2017 07:07 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

Then what’s your “genuine question”?

Why hasn’t Trump locked her Up?
THAt’s your genuine question? And you ask whether that comes across as spam, or otherwise mindless drivel?

Get up, go take a lap, then come back and talk to us when you have something, anything, of worth to offer.

Thx!

Asking why a political candidate hasn't followed through with a campaign promise, despite still bringing it up, is an example of a perfectly reasonable question. I'd really appreciate it if the other conservatives who are actually interested in some semblance of intellectual integrity would step up here and police their own. The man led chants during his campaign, it's not unreasonable to ask what happened to actually doing it.

(11-02-2017 07:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:06 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:57 AM)miko33 Wrote:  There were known leaders of crime families in NY that were known to be leaders of criminal empires, yet they were not locked up right away and roamed free for years. Maybe it takes time to put the case together with ironclad evidence. Alternatively, a more cynical view is that he "can't" pursue her because she's "too big" in the political world to indict. I would bet large sums of money that over 80% of our elected officials today could be indicted for various white collar crimes, convicted and sent to prison. However, their political connections prevent that from happening because the majority of them would also go down the same path.

Unfortunately, there are different sets of rules for different classes based on what I can see. Contrary to what it looks like on the surface, the U.S. does have a noble class that is separate and distinct from the everyday lower classes that we are.

So Trump, despite being POTUS, his party holding congress, and literally leading the chant "lock her up" during his campaign, just doesn't want to or isn't able to do prosecute Clinton? What is that based on, besides speculation?

Yes, I'm speculating. However, IMHO my speculation on the matter makes a lot of sense. Besides, I'm sure you've heard of the notion of throwing red meat at the base to amp up their enthusiasm. That's smart politics considering the object of the accusations is a lightning rod of controversy coupled with a sour personality. I strongly believe that HRC and WJC have both committed crimes that carry prison sentences. However, I think they are too well plugged into the Washington power complex to ever get indicted let alone tried and convicted.

Oh I definitely agree it's throwing red meat to his base, I just find it weird that so many people who are truly convinced Hillary has committed crimes and that she should go to prison are also willing to make up reasons why it isn't happening. Why isn't Trump actually addressing it?

(11-02-2017 07:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:07 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

Then what’s your “genuine question”?

Why hasn’t Trump locked her Up?
THAt’s your genuine question? And you ask whether that comes across as spam, or otherwise mindless drivel?

Get up, go take a lap, then come back and talk to us when you have something, anything, of worth to offer.

Thx!

Asking why a political candidate hasn't followed through with a campaign promise, despite still bringing it up, is an example of a perfectly reasonable question. I'd really appreciate it if the other conservatives who are actually interested in some semblance of intellectual integrity would step up here and police their own. The man led chants during his campaign, it's not unreasonable to ask what happened to actually doing it.

Uhhhhhh, duh?

As you very astutely point out, he is/was a political candidate. Running a political campaign.

Is he a cop? No. An FBI agent? No. A lawyer? No. Prosecutor? No. Investigator? No. Able to bring charges? No.

This is what you’re trying to peddle as a “genuine question”?!?

Might be time for your morning nap...

(11-02-2017 07:22 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:06 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:57 AM)miko33 Wrote:  There were known leaders of crime families in NY that were known to be leaders of criminal empires, yet they were not locked up right away and roamed free for years. Maybe it takes time to put the case together with ironclad evidence. Alternatively, a more cynical view is that he "can't" pursue her because she's "too big" in the political world to indict. I would bet large sums of money that over 80% of our elected officials today could be indicted for various white collar crimes, convicted and sent to prison. However, their political connections prevent that from happening because the majority of them would also go down the same path.

Unfortunately, there are different sets of rules for different classes based on what I can see. Contrary to what it looks like on the surface, the U.S. does have a noble class that is separate and distinct from the everyday lower classes that we are.

So Trump, despite being POTUS, his party holding congress, and literally leading the chant "lock her up" during his campaign, just doesn't want to or isn't able to do prosecute Clinton? What is that based on, besides speculation?

Yes, I'm speculating. However, IMHO my speculation on the matter makes a lot of sense. Besides, I'm sure you've heard of the notion of throwing red meat at the base to amp up their enthusiasm. That's smart politics considering the object of the accusations is a lightning rod of controversy coupled with a sour personality. I strongly believe that HRC and WJC have both committed crimes that carry prison sentences. However, I think they are too well plugged into the Washington power complex to ever get indicted let alone tried and convicted.

Oh I definitely agree it's throwing red meat to his base, I just find it weird that so many people who are truly convinced Hillary has committed crimes and that she should go to prison are also willing to make up reasons why it isn't happening. Why isn't Trump actually addressing it?

Nothing weird about it. Even if most people aren't tuned in to daily politics, they are nuanced enough in their thinking to understand the distinction between a tangible campaign promise vs a general desire that is not critical to governing the country. Tax reform is a tangible promise. Throwing shade against a political opponent and threatening to "lock her up" is not a central campaign policy to pursue upon taking office.

Renegotiating trade deals - tangible. Making America Great again - an amorphous ideal that people realize is a hoped for outcome given tangible policy enactments.

(11-02-2017 07:40 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:07 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

Then what’s your “genuine question”?

Why hasn’t Trump locked her Up?
THAt’s your genuine question? And you ask whether that comes across as spam, or otherwise mindless drivel?

Get up, go take a lap, then come back and talk to us when you have something, anything, of worth to offer.

Thx!

Asking why a political candidate hasn't followed through with a campaign promise, despite still bringing it up, is an example of a perfectly reasonable question. I'd really appreciate it if the other conservatives who are actually interested in some semblance of intellectual integrity would step up here and police their own. The man led chants during his campaign, it's not unreasonable to ask what happened to actually doing it.

Uhhhhhh, duh?

As you very astutely point out, he is/was a political candidate. Running a political campaign.

Is he a cop? No. An FBI agent? No. A lawyer? No. Prosecutor? No. Investigator? No. Able to bring charges? No.

This is what you’re trying to peddle as a “genuine question”?!?

Might be time for your morning nap...

It is his DOJ though

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-02-2017 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

I agree.

While I would have supported Crooked Hilary turning into Grandma Hilary and retreating from the limelight, her continued lack of acceptance and questioning of an honest election result has me re-assessing my prior generosity.

But, putting on my political lens, she will not be charged, ever, because doing so will mean the next Dem will charge the prior Rep president, then the next Rep president will charge the prior Dem with something, and that would not be good for the republic.

Strange to think that letting her get away with her clear and undeniable criminal actions is actually better for this country than frog-marching her into prison.

Same reason Trump isn't impeached over the Steele Dossier.. Evidence. Plus at the time the FBI refused to charge her.

(11-02-2017 08:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

I agree.

While I would have supported Crooked Hilary turning into Grandma Hilary and retreating from the limelight, her continued lack of acceptance and questioning of an honest election result has me re-assessing my prior generosity.

But, putting on my political lens, she will not be charged, ever, because doing so will mean the next Dem will charge the prior Rep president, then the next Rep president will charge the prior Dem with something, and that would not be good for the republic.

Strange to think that letting her get away with her clear and undeniable criminal actions is actually better for this country than frog-marching her into prison.

Isn't it possible there are just no crimes to charge her with, and Trumps posturing was entirely without any real merit? Why is that not even a possibility around here?

(11-02-2017 07:59 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:40 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 07:07 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Asking a genuine question in order to gain a better understanding of those politically opposed to you is "spam" now?

Then what’s your “genuine question”?

Why hasn’t Trump locked her Up?
THAt’s your genuine question? And you ask whether that comes across as spam, or otherwise mindless drivel?

Get up, go take a lap, then come back and talk to us when you have something, anything, of worth to offer.

Thx!

Asking why a political candidate hasn't followed through with a campaign promise, despite still bringing it up, is an example of a perfectly reasonable question. I'd really appreciate it if the other conservatives who are actually interested in some semblance of intellectual integrity would step up here and police their own. The man led chants during his campaign, it's not unreasonable to ask what happened to actually doing it.

Uhhhhhh, duh?

As you very astutely point out, he is/was a political candidate. Running a political campaign.

Is he a cop? No. An FBI agent? No. A lawyer? No. Prosecutor? No. Investigator? No. Able to bring charges? No.

This is what you’re trying to peddle as a “genuine question”?!?

Might be time for your morning nap...

It is his DOJ though

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

This. So the buck doesn't stop with Trump? Is he just an ineffectual little man up there in the highest elected office in the nation, complaining about things that the person in his position are responsible for changing?

How about for the same reason he hasn't repealed and replaced ObamaCare? He wants to, is trying, but it's not something he can do personally, but it has exposed that there really isn't a two party system, but two camps of a single group. Same deal with tax reform. Republicans have said, for years, that they wanted to replace OC and do tax reform. They control the House and Senate and have a willing President, yet nothing happens.

At the end of the day, it's not Rs and Ds, but simply a system that is filled with a bunch of people whose self interest come first. The Clintons have been the most powerful players in that system for decades. They have dirt on everybody.

(11-02-2017 08:38 AM)banker Wrote:  How about for the same reason he hasn't repealed and replaced ObamaCare? He wants to, is trying, but it's not something he can do personally, but it has exposed that there really isn't a two party system, but two camps of a single group. Same deal with tax reform. Republicans have said, for years, that they wanted to replace OC and do tax reform. They control the House and Senate and have a willing President, yet nothing happens.

At the end of the day, it's not Rs and Ds, but simply a system that is filled with a bunch of people whose self interest come first. The Clintons have been the most powerful players in that system for decades. They have dirt on everybody.

Prosecuting Hillary doesn't require congressional approval, and furthermore, congress has shown a complete willingness to go along with trying to persecute Hillary for any wrong she's committed, so that argument seems to have no real merit.

(11-02-2017 08:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 08:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Why isn't Trump locking her up? He went on and on about doing so on his campaign, he's still tweeting about her supposed crimes, but yet he hasn't taken any sort of action to actually prosecute her or even charge her with those crimes.

I agree.

While I would have supported Crooked Hilary turning into Grandma Hilary and retreating from the limelight, her continued lack of acceptance and questioning of an honest election result has me re-assessing my prior generosity.

But, putting on my political lens, she will not be charged, ever, because doing so will mean the next Dem will charge the prior Rep president, then the next Rep president will charge the prior Dem with something, and that would not be good for the republic.

Strange to think that letting her get away with her clear and undeniable criminal actions is actually better for this country than frog-marching her into prison.

Isn't it possible there are just no crimes to charge her with, and Trumps posturing was entirely without any real merit? Why is that not even a possibility around here?

I think there are two reasons why he hasn't prosecuted her. The first is Comey ' s press conference. Although there was clearly evidence of her guilt, Comey declaring that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case would doom any subsequent attempt attempt to prosecute. It would basically be an admission that the government had insufficient evidence. This is especially infuriating because Comey laid out facts that clearly establish establish her guilt. The fix was in.

Secondly, from an political standpoint, Dems and establishment types would view it as political retaliation against Clinton despite whatever evidence existed. So it's not worth the headache basically.