Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Breccia]

No we don't. Most of the GOP can't even bring themselves to stop endorsing the man.

Pence is begging. It's pathetic.

[Ghostpanther]

I've been telling people that if Trump is elected and does something bad, we know both sides will impeach him, but if Hillary does something bad her side with stick with her, like they did with her husband.

Basically nothing can be done about corrupt Hillary, but Donald would be gone if he didn't do what's right for us the people.

She is not going to get impeached. She is a master of corruption and deception. A lot of friends in high places and within the government itself, makes her also very powerful.

[Edge-]

Pence is begging. It's pathetic.

Ugh, watching Pence stoop this low is almost painful. Then you remember he willingly jumped into bed with Trump and instead giggle.

She is not going to get impeached. She is a master of corruption and deception. A lot of friends in high places and within the government itself, makes her also very powerful.

That's assuming that she does anything worth being impeached over. Though I fully expect the GOP to try to somehow impeach her over Benghazi or her emails the second she gets into office despite both matters pretty soundly being put to rest, much to the GOP's ongoing consternation.

Because you know, they're such gracious losers as of late and clearly haven't been on a half decade long (longer depending on how you want to look at it) witch hunt to prove ONCE IN FOR ALL that Hillary really is as bad as they've convinced themselves she is.

[Nekreab]

Democrats wrote the US Constitution?

Eminent domain in the US has existed since the Bill of Rights.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah I have never had a license. I do have a state ID though, to vote.

Sorry, but Federalists wrote the Constitution and the Anti-fedarists (democrats/republicans) opposed the ratification of it.

[Ghostpanther]

Ugh, watching Pence stoop this low is almost painful. Then you remember he willingly jumped into bed with Trump and instead giggle.



That's assuming that she does anything worth being impeached over. Though I fully expect the GOP to try to somehow impeach her over Benghazi or her emails the second she gets into office despite both matters pretty soundly being put to rest, much to the GOP's ongoing consternation.

Because you know, they're such gracious losers as of late and clearly haven't been on a half decade long (longer depending on how you want to look at it) witch hunt to prove ONCE IN FOR ALL that Hillary really is as bad as they've convinced themselves she is.

Pence is loyal. Something note worthy of the democrat party as a whole.

She is the Wicked Witch of the Left. Much worse than the image she tries to present to the public. She happens to be a very clever and well protected one however.

[I Push Buttons]

Sorry, but Federalists wrote the Constitution and the Anti-fedarists (democrats/republicans) opposed the ratification of it.

I was asking him if he thought Democrats wrote the constitution... He asserted Democrats created and upheld eminent domain when it has existed since the Fifth Amendment.

[Garnier Fructis]

I feel like we've reached a point where Hillary is a cunning master of deception because there's just no way that all these things we can't prove could actually be false, so the only explanation is that Hillary must be really good at making sure nothing can be proven.

It's like lack of evidence has become evidence itself.

[Felya]

How can anyone not see how corrupt Hillary is. If this was a republican others would be screaming bloody murder. But we have to have our first female president. Then we need an Asian, Latino, and everything else.

People can see it, it's just that her opponent is much worse... He is so bad, that his defense literally relies on letting him have access to laws, because his opponent couldn't stop him.

I know Donald is a crazy guy, but he hasn't used the government to get rich. He used the laws that people like Hillary could of voted for to stop.

He hasn't? 0 federal taxes paid in 20 years... 6 bankruptcy and a slew of failed business. In fact, you don't even know how rich he is, because he is doing what no other candidate has done in around 50 years, by refusing the transparency of his tax returns. Look at the argument you are making... Put Trump in charge of law, because he has done everything he could within law to skirt his responsibility. What do you think he would do? Do you think he will cut taxes so low, that the loopholes he used wouldn't be necessary? Would he deregulate to make his business easier? Because he proposed both of those things...

When Trump gets away with passing law that favors him, but shits on everyone below him, just as he has with existing law. Which congressman or will it be the Secretary of State that you will blame for not stopping him?

Nixon has nothing on Hillary.

Why was Nixon impeached?

- - - Updated - - -

She is the Wicked Witch of the Left. Much worse than the image she tries to present to the public. She happens to be a very clever and well protected one however.

She also happens to be both, the most conservative and the most liberal candidate from both major parties.

[ringpriest]

Pence is loyal. Something note worthy of the democrat party as a whole.

She is the Wicked Witch of the Left. Much worse than the image she tries to present to the public. She happens to be a very clever and well protected one however.

I'll take Elphaba over the dictatorial, tyrannical, con-artist fraud any day of the week.



(Thank you for the thought!)

[Felya]

I'll take Elphaba over the dictatorial, tyrannical, con-artist fraud any day of the week.



(Thank you for the thought!)

The worst part about his support... if Hillary and Trump were both republicans, he would find a lot more to like in Hillary, than Trump. I believe he is willing to admit that Trump is just about the worst candidate GOP could have selected.

[Deletedaccount1]

Democrats wrote the US Constitution?

Eminent domain in the US has existed since the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment allows the use of eminent domain only for public use and with just compensation to the owner (I don't support that either). The idea that a private entity can take land from another because it may (or may not as is often the case) result in some form of utilitarian gain is a form of appropriation that is not in the constitution.

Eminent domain laws hurt the poor yet they are something that Democrats support none the less. Not to mention zoning laws.

[Felya]

The First Amendment allows the use of eminent domain only for public use and with just compensation to the owner (I don't support that either). The idea that a private entity can take land from another because it may (or may not as is often the case) result in some form of utilitarian gain is a form of appropriation that is not in the constitution.

Eminent domain laws hurt the poor yet they are something that Democrats support none the less. Not to mention zoning laws.

No, both democrats and republicans spoke out against eminent domain as recently as 2005. You know who disagreed with both? Trump was one of the few and probebly the loudest supporter who wanted private to private transfer part of eminent domain. On top of that, Trump him self has tried unsuccessfully to get property, including claiming an office space and an entertainment center would make the city a national tourist attraction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cdcf99f8b286

Yes, why you point at democrats, Trump him self has proposed and even attempted to get away with stretching eminent domain beyond any member of GOP or DNC. Remember, US does not own the land on the southern border... that's where the wall will go...

[Slybak]

The First Amendment allows the use of eminent domain only for public use and with just compensation to the owner (I don't support that either).

Fifth Amendment. And Kelo maintained the existing precedent where the power of eminent domain was constrained by the Just Compensation Clause, not the Public Use Clause - in other words, what prevents government from stealing private property is that they have to pay for it. That's where Stevens's majority opinion was focused (and extra-so for Kennedy's concurrence). The dissenting opinion by O'Connor reads a "substantive content" standard into Public Use where none existed before, and would have basically made the Federal judiciary into supervisors of economic activity for the purpose of adjudicating such conflicts.

That's bad precedent, and actual judicial activism. The majority opinion deferred to the legislature - state and federal in their respective spheres - to define what constituted public use, as had been precedent since forever. And if the public doesn't like the legislature's operating definition of public use, there are these things called "elections" that can help remedy that conflict.

[Deletedaccount1]

No, both democrats and republicans spoke out against eminent domain as recently as 2005. You know who disagreed with both? Trump was one of the few and probebly the loudest supporter who wanted private to private transfer part of eminent domain. On top of that, Trump him self has tried unsuccessfully to get property, including claiming an office space and an entertainment center would make the city a national tourist attraction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cdcf99f8b286

Yes, why you point at democrats, Trump him self has proposed and even attempted to get away with stretching eminent domain beyond any member of GOP or DNC. Remember, US does not own the land on the southern border... that's where the wall will go...

Some Democrats and Republicans have spoken out. I know Trump disagreed with both, that is why I brought the topic up in the first place, discussing how he uses it for his gain.

Most Democrats support eminent domain:
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/372074466/962370

Funny you link an article written by a free market economist quoting another free market economist. I would imagine they both would side with me in regards to how both parties treat the issue.

I don't even know what the bolded sentence means. Trump supports it, I get that but that doesn't mean Democrats and Republicans don't also support it and keep it legal. Trump has never held elected office so his ability to effect policy is minimal.

[Felya]

Some Democrats and Republicans have spoken out. I know Trump disagreed with both, that is why I brought the topic up in the first place, discussing how he uses it for his gain.

He tried, but failed... because he stretches the concept beyond any reasonable limit... office space and entertainment center?

Most Democrats support eminent domain:
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/372074466/962370

I linked actual comments from democrats holding office...

Funny you link an article written by a free market economist quoting another free market economist. I would imagine they both would side with me in regards to how both parties treat the issue.

Funny that they didn't...

I don't even know what the bolded sentence means. Trump supports it, I get that but that doesn't mean Democrats and Republicans don't also support it and keep it legal. Trump has never held elected office so his ability to effect policy is minimal.

According to the source you claim should agree with you, it proves you wrong...

[Deletedaccount1]

Fifth Amendment. And Kelo maintained the existing precedent where the power of eminent domain was constrained by the Just Compensation Clause, not the Public Use Clause - in other words, what prevents government from stealing private property is that they have to pay for it. That's where Stevens's majority opinion was focused (and extra-so for Kennedy's concurrence). The dissenting opinion by O'Connor reads a "substantive content" standard into Public Use where none existed before, and would have basically made the Federal judiciary into supervisors of economic activity for the purpose of adjudicating such conflicts.

That's bad precedent, and actual judicial activism. The majority opinion deferred to the legislature - state and federal in their respective spheres - to define what constituted public use, as had been precedent since forever.

The fact that the current usage of eminent domain is constitutional doesn't make me support it. The person originally said that eminent domain "existed since the constitution".

The fact that the Supreme Court has upheld that a third party can take private property from another party under the Just Compensation Clause is a reinterpretation or addition that the constitution did not originally hold.

If anything, this bolsters my original argument that the current usage of eminent domain is a recent government invention.

- - - Updated - - -

He tried, but failed... because he stretches the concept beyond any reasonable limit... office space and entertainment center?

I linked actual comments from democrats holding office...

Funny that they didn't...

According to the source you claim should agree with you, it proves you wrong...

Trump has used eminent domain for more than just "office space and entertainment centers". He failed in those instances but has succeeded in others.

The Kelo decision generated controversy from both Democrats and Republicans but the fact remains that the issue at large is still supported by the majority of Democrats.

What exactly does Somin prove me wrong on?

[Drew79]

He hasn't? 0 federal taxes paid in 20 years... 6 bankruptcy and a slew of failed business. In fact, you don't even know how rich he is, because he is doing what no other candidate has done in around 50 years, by refusing the transparency of his tax returns. Look at the argument you are making... Put Trump in charge of law, because he has done everything he could within law to skirt his responsibility. What do you think he would do? Do you think he will cut taxes so low, that the loopholes he used wouldn't be necessary? Would he deregulate to make his business easier? Because he proposed both of those things...

I agree about his family taking over his business would be a conflict of interest like the Secretary of State doing favors for money. They are both bad.

[Slybak]

The fact that the current usage of eminent domain is constitutional doesn't make me support it. The person originally said that eminent domain "existed since the constitution".

Before, actually. It existed in England since William the Conqueror, and just compensation was added in the Magna Carta.

The fact that the Supreme Court has upheld that a third party can take private property from another party under the Just Compensation Clause is a reinterpretation or addition that the constitution did not originally hold.

But they didn't do that. They held that legislatures can expropriate land for public use so long as just compensation is fulfilled. What constitutes public use, as I've said, has long been the dominion of legislatures under the rationale that it is the most immediately accountable to the actual public in whose name the property is being expropriated. The dissent in Kelo usurped that power for the judiciary.

If anything, this bolsters my original argument that the current usage of eminent domain is a recent government invention.

Your argument depends on blatant unfamiliarity with the case law.

[Orlong]

His statements about the military and ISIS pretty clearly show he has no idea what he's talking about. It would take a miracle for someone with no clue to be competent on matters of national security.

Whats more secure than destroying the threat to your nation and anything that gets in the way?

- - - Updated - - -

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.c.../09/ninety.pdf

Above is the first group of 95 generals and admirals who endorsed her.

Below is the second group of 15 more:

i dont see any generals or admirals in that list, just a bunch of retired veterans. They are likely elderly since they USED to be generals and admirals which takes a long time, and may be showing signs of dementia, Alzheimers, or PTSD.

- - - Updated - - -

What you're talking about is trying to politically engineer the SCOTUS, which goes against everything the SCOTUS is meant to be and to represent. The goal should be to hire the best candidates, not to "balance" the Supreme Court according to some subjective, arbitrary, and moving non-standard.

Perhaps Trump wouldnt need to play that game if Obama hadnt already played it by appointing 2 members solely because they were very likely to rule in the favor of his political beliefs rather than by the law. He also intentionally appointed 2 young people to set in stone a liberal bias for a generation, and he made it a point to only appoint women so that they will be likely to rule in favor of upholding and expanding Roe vs Wade.

[-Nurot]

Whats more secure than destroying the threat to your nation and anything that gets in the way?

Nothing, except Trump's logic of knowing more than everyone including our military and that we need to not just kill ISIS, but their families too clearly isn't the correct line of thinking unless you want to make our country less safe. So many people just want to see it all burn and that's why they're voting for Trump so its no surprise, but it is troubling that so many have a desire to make us less safe.

i dont see any generals or admirals in that list, just a bunch of retired veterans. They are likely elderly since they USED to be generals and admirals which takes a long time, and may be showing signs of dementia, Alzheimers, or PTSD.

That's right Donald Trump thinks those with PTSD are weak. I guess their votes probably shouldn't matter? Or POWS they probably shouldn't get to vote either, seeing as how Donald has disdain for them. Also wasn't trump's list of 88 all retired as well? Guess you're saying his support must be senile.

Perhaps Trump wouldnt need to play that game if Obama hadnt already played it by appointing 2 members solely because they were very likely to rule in the favor of his political beliefs rather than by the law. He also intentionally appointed 2 young people to set in stone a liberal bias for a generation, and he made it a point to only appoint women so that they will be likely to rule in favor of upholding and expanding Roe vs Wade.

So when 4/7 are conservative leaning, it's business as usual. When 4/7 have a chance at being liberal leaning, suddenly it's tantrum time and becomes a rigged game that needs to be tampered with?