Crooked Hillary!

There's a massive difference between political correctness and honoring the conventions of debate.

While it was a pretty good example of ad hom, I prefer any conversation I'm in to not have everyone agree with me, it's the only way a person can keep from becoming stuck up their own ass. Hugboxes are real and they are much more damaging than logical fallacies, because they are much easier to fall victim to even if you know about them; it's a comfortable zone that's very easy to lose yourself in. As long as you don't get angry at the insult itself, it keeps you (or at least, me) sane. I am always willing to adjust my views if someone says something, I look it up and it turns out I was wrong. I have done that in the past in threads on this site.

I sincerely doubt that any significant number of people will forgo the comforts of civilization to secede because Hillary becomes president. People like to talk big and then fail to follow through on their extreme measures because it's bloody inconvenient. There's no mechanism for interconnected communities to partition their utilities to start.

All correct, the main way people like that will be resisting the regime would be defensively, there would be no real offensives, they would be a nuisance by cutting off roads attached to their properties as their main form of protest. They feel safest in their own environment and rarely leave even in times when they feel relatively safe, there's no way they would ever leave in a situation where they feel genuinely threatened. Most of them are fully self-sufficient though so they don't need interconnection anyway. The one I visited had a stockpile to last 10 years and crops to replace those, they could probably last twice that if they were frugal and no civil war in a first world country in this day and age would last 20 years, it would be political suicide, they would rather give in to the rebels long before that than risk the world viewing them as that weak. In this instance though, since it would not be any real "attacks", at least not unless things are even worse than I myself imagine, they could probably just play it off by not CALLING it a war and just putting out the message that some malcontents are making a nuisance of themselves.

Since it doesn't appear that the case will ever see a day in court, we don't have a ruling but there does appear to me to be a reasonable legal interpretation that she is "innocent".

Based on the laws of the country, someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that is literally the only way I feel she could be interpreted as innocent at this point. In all other ways but legally, she is guilty, and she is only not guilty from a legal standpoint because she is "too big to fail" and they would rather bail her out than bring her down and have to deal with all the preceding fallout.