Hillary Clinton advocates shredding the constitution

[Hotdog]

Wow!

In other words, if the impeachment process doesnt give the results Hillary and the dems want then the constitution should be shredded.

This is the person Dems thought should president of the United States of America?

We dodged a pretty big bullet, but the war rages on. All the mindless zombies who parrot the radical left wing nonsense from the far left politicians and media will soon be calling for an end to the constitution when this impeachment doesnt go as planned.

This treasonous bitch...SMH She and her cronies are doing irreparable damage to this country. Get ready for the craziness to ramp up even more.

 

[One Brow]

In other words, if the impeachment process doesnt give the results Hillary and the dems want then the constitution should be shredded.

Way to show you are not obsessed with people who have never been President.

 

[silesian]

Wow!

In other words, if the impeachment process doesnt give the results Hillary and the dems want then the constitution should be shredded.

This is the person Dems thought should president of the United States of America?

We dodged a pretty big bullet, but the war rages on. All the mindless zombies who parrot the radical left wing nonsense from the far left politicians and media will soon be calling for an end to the constitution when this impeachment doesnt go as planned.

This treasonous bitch...SMH She and her cronies are doing irreparable damage to this country. Get ready for the craziness to ramp up even more.

Omg, your intellect is nonexistent.

you might as well shred the constitution if you are going to ignore it.

That was clearly her point.

 

[Hotdog]

Way to show you are not obsessed with people who have never been President.

You can joke about obsessing over Hillary all you want. But she is still a voice for the Democratic party. Her disgusting comments only embolden the nut jobs out there.

 

[Hotdog]

Omg, your intellect is nonexistent.

you might as well shred the constitution if you are going to ignore it.

That was clearly her point.

No. It clearly wasnt. Her message clearly is if the Democrats dont get their way then the Constitution doesnt work. Which is wrong. We have system and way of going about things. If you dont get what you want after that process, then maybe something is wrong with what you want to happen.

Just being Democrat doesnt make you right. Just because you cry a lot doesnt make you right. Clearly a lot of people do not agree with you.

 

[silesian]

No. It clearly wasnt. Her message clearly is if the Democrats dont get their way then the Constitution doesnt work. Which is wrong. We have system and way of going about things. If you dont get what you want after that process, then maybe something is wrong with what you want to happen.

Just being Democrat doesnt make you right. Just because you cry a lot doesnt make you right. Clearly a lot of people do not agree with you.

You are correct less often than a stopped watch. bye Dunning Kruger, you are truly hopeless.

 

[Hotdog]

You are correct less often than a stopped watch. bye Dunning Kruger, you are truly hopeless.

Then you are 100x less correct than me.

 

[Red]

In other words, if the impeachment process doesnt give the results Hillary and the dems want then the constitution should be shredded.

Donald Trump seems to be doing a good job of shredding the Constitution already. End runs around Congress's power of the purse, for his precious wall. Fighting like hell to prevent the Constitutionally mandated right of the Legislative branch to exercise oversight over the Executive branch(seperation of powers), and maybe other ways that escape me at the moment. I think we're in a Trump-caused constitutional crisis at the moment, not one caused by Hillary, who will never be the president, and who will never be in the position to shred the Constitution. JMHO....

 

[olden_undercover]

No. It clearly wasnt. Her message clearly is if the Democrats dont get their way then the Constitution doesnt work. Which is wrong. We have system and way of going about things. If you dont get what you want after that process, then maybe something is wrong with what you want to happen.

Just being Democrat doesnt make you right. Just because you cry a lot doesnt make you right. Clearly a lot of people do not agree with you.

Hold up, man-- I get that you operate on a black-and-white level, but dig a little into the full context of her tweet. Ask yourself a few questions:

- Do you believe, had he not resigned, that Nixon would have been impeached as a result of the charges brought against him? Should he have been? If 'no' to either of these questions, please explain.
- Do you honestly believe Rep. Jordan, who was a Democrat in 1974, was saying the Constitution should literally be shredded if charges of impeachment were not brought against him? Regardless of your answer, at least consider that she wasn't-- that she was instead making a point that his crimes were blatantly obvious, and if that body lacked the will to bring articles of impeachment against him, it might as well be shredded and rewritten to meet their corrupt interpretation. Clinton is merely equating the gravity of Nixon's actions to Trump's, and not calling for the Constitution to be shredded.

But here's the thing: You have made it clear you believe Trump's actions do not merit investigation, much less articles of impeachment. How do you defend that? I'm asking this in earnest: When you read the call transcript between Trump and Zelensky (I'm assuming you did), did you not understand the contingencies made by our president around the US-Ukrainian relationship-- namely, that if good relations were to continue, Zelensky would need to perform 'the favor' of investigating Biden? If not, how exactly did you interpret that conversation, because Zelensky seemed to understand very clearly in his response that current and future relations with the US would depend on his full cooperation with Trump's request. If you did understand those statements to be coercive, are you saying you believe this is acceptable behavior by a US president? If so, how do you defend that?

Edit: Just a note that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, fwiw.

 

[silesian]

- Do you honestly believe Rep. Jordan, who was a Democrat in 1974, was saying the Constitution should literally be shredded if charges of impeachment were not brought against him? Regardless of your answer, at least consider that she wasn't-- that she was instead making a point that his crimes were blatantly obvious, and if that body lacked the will to bring articles of impeachment against him, it might as well be shredded and rewritten to meet their corrupt interpretation. Clinton is merely equating the gravity of Nixon's actions to Trump's, and not calling for the Constitution to be shredded.
.

Precisely correct.

but there is HRC derangement syndrome and the simpleminded won’t read beyond “she wants to shred the constitution”. Because that is what they already believe and only selectively read what confirms their worldview. Facts and logic otherwise are summarily rejected.

 

[Hotdog]

Hold up, man-- I get that you operate on a black-and-white level, but dig a little into the full context of her tweet. Ask yourself a few questions:

- Do you believe, had he not resigned, that Nixon would have been impeached as a result of the charges brought against him? Should he have been? If 'no' to either of these questions, please explain.
- Do you honestly believe Rep. Jordan, who was a Democrat in 1974, was saying the Constitution should literally be shredded if charges of impeachment were not brought against him? Regardless of your answer, at least consider that she wasn't-- that she was instead making a point that his crimes were blatantly obvious, and if that body lacked the will to bring articles of impeachment against him, it might as well be shredded and rewritten to meet their corrupt interpretation. Clinton is merely equating the gravity of Nixon's actions to Trump's, and not calling for the Constitution to be shredded.

But here's the thing: You have made it clear you believe Trump's actions do not merit investigation, much less articles of impeachment. How do you defend that? I'm asking this in earnest: When you read the call transcript between Trump and Zelensky (I'm assuming you did), did you not understand the contingencies made by our president around the US-Ukrainian relationship-- namely, that if good relations were to continue, Zelensky would need to perform 'the favor' of investigating Biden? If not, how exactly did you interpret that conversation, because Zelensky seemed to understand very clearly in his response that current and future relations with the US would depend on his full cooperation with Trump's request. If you did understand those statements to be coercive, are you saying you believe this is acceptable behavior by a US president? If so, how do you defend that?

Edit: Just a note that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, fwiw.

I read the transcript. He never once said what he is accused of. Thats why Schiff had to make up his own version.

Enough with the dog whistles and secret coded mafia boss language. Show me where he actually says what you are saying he said. Quote the exact quote from the transcript.

 

[Hotdog]

Precisely correct.

but there is HRC derangement syndrome and the simpleminded won’t read beyond “she wants to shred the constitution”. Because that is what they already believe and only selectively read what confirms their worldview. Facts and logic otherwise are summarily rejected.

Nope. Wrong. Learn to read

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Rewriting the constitution would be smart. Let Bernie do it.

 

[babe]

Donald Trump seems to be doing a good job of shredding the Constitution already. End runs around Congress's power of the purse, for his precious wall. Fighting like hell to prevent the Constitutionally mandated right of the Legislative branch to exercise oversight over the Executive branch(seperation of powers), and maybe other ways that escape me at the moment. I think we're in a Trump-caused constitutional crisis at the moment, not one caused by Hillary, who will never be the president, and who will never be in the position to shred the Constitution. JMHO....

straining at knats, swallowing camels.

You object to the stuff Trump is doing, when previous Presidents set precedents that are far more serious, which you think are fine because they run "your way" in political progress.

I think our Executive branch needs to be provided with means to act in times of need, pretty much like the law reads, for dealing with our border, for example, per the Court's recent rulings.

I think we haven't had a President, ever, who has made the rule of Constitution or legislated laws as important. Of course, he knows he'll be sued every step of the way, so what the hell. He has not done anything that has actually been wrong, or unjustified, or within the law. He has done stuff where the courts ruled against him, but he has always respected the rulings.

 

[Hotdog]

Rewriting the constitution would be smart. Let Bernie do it.

Or you could just get a job and pay back the student loans you agreed to pay back.

 

[babe]

Hold up, man-- I get that you operate on a black-and-white level, but dig a little into the full context of her tweet. Ask yourself a few questions:

- Do you believe, had he not resigned, that Nixon would have been impeached as a result of the charges brought against him? Should he have been? If 'no' to either of these questions, please explain.
- Do you honestly believe Rep. Jordan, who was a Democrat in 1974, was saying the Constitution should literally be shredded if charges of impeachment were not brought against him? Regardless of your answer, at least consider that she wasn't-- that she was instead making a point that his crimes were blatantly obvious, and if that body lacked the will to bring articles of impeachment against him, it might as well be shredded and rewritten to meet their corrupt interpretation. Clinton is merely equating the gravity of Nixon's actions to Trump's, and not calling for the Constitution to be shredded.

But here's the thing: You have made it clear you believe Trump's actions do not merit investigation, much less articles of impeachment. How do you defend that? I'm asking this in earnest: When you read the call transcript between Trump and Zelensky (I'm assuming you did), did you not understand the contingencies made by our president around the US-Ukrainian relationship-- namely, that if good relations were to continue, Zelensky would need to perform 'the favor' of investigating Biden? If not, how exactly did you interpret that conversation, because Zelensky seemed to understand very clearly in his response that current and future relations with the US would depend on his full cooperation with Trump's request. If you did understand those statements to be coercive, are you saying you believe this is acceptable behavior by a US president? If so, how do you defend that?

Edit: Just a note that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, fwiw.

Foreign policy and foreign aid have always been somewhat coordinated, for values we generally accept. I think the T-Z call was nothing either unusual or illegal, with no way in hell it could mean anything personally to Trump, that he had not a perfect right to ask for. It's his job to "execute" our laws, and that includes the request, per treaty agreement, for cooperation in investigation any legal matter, like VP Biden and his son. It's his absolute duty.

The Dems should not be so stupid as to front a man with issues like that, which are already documented to a significant extent, and probably already under investigation. Well, and relevant to all the 2016 PE issues that should be investigated.

I thought it was a hoot that Trump called for the Chinese to investigate the Bidens.

Everyone who knows, knows that largely in Asia, and perhaps most so in China, government officials showers favors on representatives from other nations who shower favors on them. It's the way things are.

But it is precisely the issue in our Trade negotiations, the thing that is holding us up from an agreement. We are asking China to change it's legal and cultural ways, to respect Western law, patents, and proprietary stuff. Level playing field on all that.

We should absolutely not be shooting Trump down while he's standing up for us.

 

[silesian]

Nope. Wrong. Learn to read

I believe you can read. You are a simpleton who fails to understand what you are reading.

 

[Red]

Trump has corrupted, for his own political ends, two major cabinet posts. The State Dept., and the Dept. of Justice. AG Barr has always believed in a chief executive with the more power the better. The degree to which he is seeking to help craft Trump's effort to re-image himself into a fake history in which Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, is remarkable. The chief law enforcement official in our country is engaged in Trump's obsessions. This is not in service to the truth, or the Constitution.

Pompeo also seems in on the effort to erase the truth of 2016. On top of that, as a Christian Zionist , Pompeo is part of that solid core of evangelical Trump believers who are capable of seeing Trump as a leader chosen by God. The reason the movie "The Trump Prophesy" was so popular among that core. Absorbing Trump into end time narratives reveals a strong irrational and inflexible element in Trump support, and an opening to legitimize the idea that this is cult of personality:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/03/the-trump-prophecy-film-god-election-mark-taylor

As the old saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Pompeo and Barr in his pocket, Giuliani as a shadow state department, a Big Lie-style Deep State narrative to serve as an "alternate facts" belief system, no intention of treating Congress as a co-equal branch of government, a near fully compliant party, a state media news outlet that willingly promotes the false narratives, the willingness to call and identify any opposition, even mere difference of opinion, an enemy of The People.

This is a trend toward absolutism. The Constitution was not written with an absolute ruler in mind. As Ben Franklin observed, "a republic, if you can keep it". This is where we should be concerned where "shredding the Constitution" is concerned. Hillary as a diversion doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of standing up to what Trump is doing.

 

[One Brow]

You can joke about obsessing over Hillary all you want. But she is still a voice for the Democratic party. Her disgusting comments only embolden the nut jobs out there.

Knowing that all you are doing is trolling, and are repeating a talking point you've regarding joking about gun usage, I'm still curious how these nutjobs could impeach Trump without the help of Congress.

 

[jazzrule]

I believe you can read. You are a simpleton who fails to understand what you are reading.

Congratulations I just put you on ignore like the rest of the communist, socialist, anti-Trumpers, liberals, black lives matter or whatever you call yourself today. My life is going to be much better not listening to your B.S.