Flonne Wrote:That whole deal is more interesting to me than the entire election, honestly; on one end, we get a wildcard candidate pulled out of a hat to run as the Democratic nominee if she is indicted after the primaries are over and Bernie if before, and almost even better, undeniable proof that an influential family can buy their way out of an FBI investigation even with overwhelming evidence stacked against them if she doesn't. Either way, it's going to shake things up, and that's the only thing that interests me anymore.

Rich families getting out of pomegranate has happened in the past, but what makes this more of a pivotal point is that the last MAJOR major scandal like this was long before email and all the other things that make tracking everything people do simple. It's one thing to bring up large amounts of circumstantial evidence to the court and link it all together to form something legitimate, it's another thing entirely to have absolute, undeniable, impossible to fudge evidence like what is currently against her, her only defense is the sheer amount of data she leaked and that's no defense other than a delay on the trial so all of the evidence can be gathered in one place. And that's not even mentioning Benghazi, multiple people including ambassadors got killed because of her incompetence there, I hope that is part of her trial just to kick her while she's down. The point is, even if she gets through this, there is no situation where she will regain the trust of anyone short of writing up a lasting world peace agreement in her own blood because at the last minute the committee ran out of ink.

Polantaris Wrote:So, I haven't been paying as much attention to the Hillary thing as I probably should, but I have to ask...

Is there any particular reason why she's able to still run for President while she has such a massive case over her head? It just seems a tad ridiculous to me.

VerrKol Wrote:The only requirements to become president are spelled out in the constitution and amendment 22 IIRC. Basically you have to be a naturalized citizen, be 35 years old, and lived in the US for 14 years. Technically speaking, she could be a convicted felon in jail and still run for president and win if she gets enough votes. She would probably be impeached immediately afterwards, but it's really hard to tell with out politics.

xparasite9 Wrote:there will still be some that won't even want to become citizens.

VerrKol Wrote:The only requirements to become president are spelled out in the constitution and amendment 22 IIRC. Basically you have to be a naturalized citizen, be 35 years old, and lived in the US for 14 years. Technically speaking, she could be a convicted felon in jail and still run for president and win if she gets enough votes. She would probably be impeached immediately afterwards, but it's really hard to tell with out politics.

Polantaris Wrote:Fair enough, that makes sense.

It's kind of mind boggling that the majority clearly doesn't give a pomegranate about any of this stuff. She shouldn't even be a consideration at this point, and the fact that she is is pretty damn depressing. I can understand how Trump is winning the Republican Primary (because he knows who to manipulate to get it), but Hillary shouldn't even be close.

Flonne Wrote:I'm almost positive she will be forced by law to drop out if she is indicted, I think you may be right and you CAN still run technically if you are a felon or even in prison, but not if you are considered to be a traitor to the nation, which this would fall under as leaking state secrets without regard.

VerrKol Wrote:Technically speaking, being a traitor does not disqualify you from running or being president.

Flonne Wrote:I just looked it up and stuff because I was curious, and technically treason only matters if it happens -during- the presidency, at that point it's grounds for immediate impeachment but if it happens before, no problem. What a great set of laws we have.

Flonne Wrote:I just looked it up and stuff because I was curious, and technically treason only matters if it happens -during- the presidency, at that point it's grounds for immediate impeachment but if it happens before, no problem. What a great set of laws we have.

Raph589 Wrote:So this thread is basically pro-Trump people circlejerk

SaptaZapta Wrote:I guess the law puts a lot of trust in the electorate's rationality.
If the American voters know someone committed treason in the past, and still vote for them, they must have good reason, right?

Raph589 Wrote:So this thread is basically pro-Trump people circlejerking to the point everyone else just ran away from hearing too much bullpomegranate.
Southperry sure is a nice place these days.

Polantaris Wrote:That and the common sense of the people not to elect a traitor or just downright cancerous person. The founding fathers never expected this kind of scenario, one where the majority of voters can be swayed by exclusively fancy and contradictory words.

Polantaris Wrote:That and the common sense of the people not to elect a traitor or just downright cancerous person. The founding fathers never expected this kind of scenario, one where the majority of voters can be swayed by exclusively fancy and contradictory words.

SaptaZapta Wrote:Which makes the conditions they did put in very telling: The Founding Fathers trusted the people to not elect a traitor, but they didn't trust them to not elect a foreigner.

Quote:“Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried.”

VerrKol Wrote:xparasite9; What does The Hungry Caterpillar have to do with anything? Is Trump turning into a butterfly?

xparasite9 Wrote:I think it's a jab at Kasich