The Politics Thread

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #8 (isolation #0) » Tue May 10, 2016 7:16 am

In post 6, Rob14 wrote:A large group of others that are all nominated by President Trump, though.

The nuclear football has launch codes. It isn't a button, certainly, but my understanding is that those launch codes can do a lot of bad.

You really don't need to worry about this. It is statistically most likely that we will blow ourselves up by accident.

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #12 (isolation #1) » Wed May 11, 2016 3:49 am

nope, it will be entertaining

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #20 (isolation #2) » Wed May 11, 2016 4:42 am

In post 15, BROseidon wrote:
In post 11, CooLDoG wrote:is it bad for me to want trump to win just for entertainment value?
Yes. Real people will literally die as a result of a Trump presidency.

real people already have died due to Hillary Clinton being in office

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #22 (isolation #3) » Wed May 11, 2016 8:47 am

In post 21, KuroiXHF wrote:
In post 20, drmyshottyizsik wrote:
In post 15, BROseidon wrote:
In post 11, CooLDoG wrote:is it bad for me to want trump to win just for entertainment value?
Yes. Real people will literally die as a result of a Trump presidency.
real people already have died due to Hillary Clinton being in office
Hey, she shouldn't be in trouble! She's a woman, you sexist pig!

Maybe she just shouldn't have been in office. She would have never been in trouble then.

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #24 (isolation #4) » Wed May 11, 2016 9:20 am

In post 23, KuroiXHF wrote:No, you bigot. She failed because the office wasn't BIG ENOUGH for her.

That's why she's running for president.

I think I like you?

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #33 (isolation #5) » Fri May 13, 2016 1:12 pm

As much as it shouldn't be so clear I think it is very clear Clinton will get it

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #36 (isolation #6) » Fri May 13, 2016 1:29 pm

I agree

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #40 (isolation #7) » Fri May 13, 2016 1:31 pm

There is, but Loretta Lynch said she wouldn't indict her

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #44 (isolation #8) » Fri May 13, 2016 1:40 pm

In post 42, Psyche wrote:
In post 40, drmyshottyizsik wrote:There is, but Loretta Lynch said she wouldn't indict her
that's not true

you're right she just made it a point to announce that she isn't required to indict her even if the fbi says she should

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #48 (isolation #9) » Fri May 13, 2016 1:48 pm

In post 45, Psyche wrote:she did not "make it a point to announce" anything

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked whether her agency would be "required" to pursue criminal charges against Clinton, and she responded accurately to that question

Of course that's hiw she answered it, but if she were willing to indict her she would have said so, and wouldn't continuously not answer the question when asked of whether or not she would be willing to regardless

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #51 (isolation #10) » Fri May 13, 2016 1:53 pm

psych kept calling me a sociopath so I'm giving the thread some cool down time. I'll open it

drmyshottyizsik · Post Post #53 (isolation #11) » Fri May 13, 2016 2:03 pm

In post 50, Psyche wrote:
In post 48, drmyshottyizsik wrote:
In post 45, Psyche wrote:she did not "make it a point to announce" anything

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked whether her agency would be "required" to pursue criminal charges against Clinton, and she responded accurately to that question
Of course that's hiw she answered it, but if she were willing to indict her she would have said so, and wouldn't continuously not answer the question when asked of whether or not she would be willing to regardless
do you think the justice department should make it a practice to announce their intentions to indict people before the fbi tells them whether a crime has even been committed or not

No that's fair.