We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Let’s say Donald Trump wins the election. And let’s say Democrats believe everything they say about him – that he’s the next Hitler. Wouldn’t President Obama be obligated to declare martial law and remain in power?
I realize this question sounds silly when you first hear it. But keep in mind that Democrats have successfully sold the “racist strongman” narrative about Trump to their own ranks. If they’re right about Trump, we need to start getting serious about planning for martial law, for the good of the country and the world. No one wants another Hitler. And if they’re wrong, we still need to plan for martial law because Democrats think they are right. That’s all it takes.
Hopefully, Assange will be true to his word when he says he is going to release Hillary emails that will get her arrested. I assume he means emails showing her selling out the country for personal gain.
"Hopefully, Assange will be true to his word when he says he is going to release Hillary emails that will get her arrested."
There is a bit of a problem with that. Since the emails were hacked (i.e., obtained illegally), it could get just a little tricky to submit them as evidence in any legal proceedings.
(I seem to recall that the lawyers for the detainees in Gitmo got their hands on classified US DoD reports about their defendants from WikiLeaks. The judge asked how this evidence was obtained and it was rejected because it had been stolen from the US Government.)
My younger brother believes she is more honest than most politicians and even most people. His evidence is all these things that Republicans have tried to pin on her and came up with NOTHING. (Yes, my brother went all-caps on me.)
This isn't as unusual as one might think. It is human nature to double-down and insist we were right the first time, and subsequent attacks on veracity do not undermine the credibility of our heroes, but reinforce it. One would think that a good Democrat would say "Okay, she's shady, greedy, and vindictive, but she's still better than Trump" - which is a sort of reasoning I can understand even if I might come to a different conclusion. Some people do proceed this way. One-third of Democrats think Clinton is dishonest. Others pass on the question. Yet there still remain almost half of all Democrats who believe she is essentially honest.
Assistant Village Idiot
" I often feel like there’s the Hillary standard and then there’s the standard for everybody else."
No kidding. We feel like that, too.
A law for thee and a law for me
but no law it seems for Hillary
Yeah, if I had lied about abusing emails as Secretary of State, and lied when my ambassador died, and lied about being under fire on the tarmac I would have been held accountable. Hillary? Nah, she has lady parts and is anointed by the coastal elites. Hillary is clearly above the law. I am held accountable to it EVERY $&#^ING day in this day of dozens of new and complex laws. The fact that she sees it as the opposite is just ANOTHER example of her being completely out of touch with the real world. I guess the real question is with the thousands of new laws on the books every year, how come Hillary can't get convicted now matter how blatantly she ignores those laws?