You are correct sir! 10 extra nerd points to you. Congratulations, you are well on your way to being recognized as a "Master Dweeb"! (Post has been edited from thief kit to bard kit.)
As the debates go on, i must conclude that Hillary is chaotic evil (breaking laws, lying under oath, etc.) And Bernie WAS lawful good (he might still be, but something or someone pressured him imho)..... Jill Stein is chaotic good (vandalism during pipeline protest) .... Trump has done a lot of good in his life. .. and then said some terrible things. ... but he also says he's changed. .. trump is the one wildcard that is almost impossible to place... lawful means following a code. . I don't think Hillary has a code, but Trump might. .. he also might be lawful evil however. ....
I wouldn't call Hillary chaotic or evil. She's the most heavily scrutinized politician in the U.S. besides our presidents, but even her worst enemies cannot indict her, much less convict her. Seven congressional investigations failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing, the Clinton Foundation is highly marked by Charity Watch, and even recently leaked speeches contain no damning revelations. And as many emails are missing, we still have more of her emails than any other politician--none of which seem to be offensive, judging by the media's disinterest in the existing emails.
Unless you believe the FBI, the Department of Justice, and even the Republican Party are all pawns of Hillary Clinton, I find it quite meaningful that none of them have scrounged up enough evidence to convict her of anything.
And when something vaguely shady does show up, I keep seeing her detractors fail to explain the actual damage caused by any of them. Her policy on Libya is one thing, but the emails? The speeches? Benghazi? I have yet to see anyone actually showing how any of those decisions caused real harm to anybody. There's a lot of insinuation, a lot of innuendo, and a lot of spooky shadows and scary rhetoric, but when Clinton gets accused of a crime, every charge falls apart under mild scrutiny.
We do have a legal system in America, contrary to what some seem to think. If somebody commits a crime, they can be prosecuted for it, no matter how rich or powerful they are. People act like Clinton's power allows her to evade the law. But our legal system isn't that weak. Richard Nixon couldn't evade it even when he was actually the president, and had all the power that the presidency entails.
Maybe the reason she survived so many accusations and so much scrutiny is because the accusations just don't hold water.
Honestly, the worst part of all this is that people are ignoring the most important things about her campaign. Instead of criticizing her platform, or her statements, or her voting record in the Senate, people are complaining about the most meaningless minutiae I can imagine.
So, uh...no offense, @semiticgod but Richard Nixon was caught in the watergate scandal, but during the investigation of watergate and the reason behind it, it was discovered that he was only one of four presidents that was performing illegal activities in Korea and Vietnam. The things done in Korea and Vietnam was the whole reason for watergate...
I don't mean to be contrary, but my point is that political figures in our country have done some incredibly screwed up and illegal things and got away with it. The only reason Nixon was caught was because they made too many mistakes after a private reporter who freely put his neck on the line to expose the scandal despite the pawns, as you put it, who were doing illegal stuff and covering for Nixon in Operation Re-Elect the President and afterwards in an attempt to cover it all up. They just made way too many mistakes in a row for them to not be caught. Strangely enough, Nixon escaped jail time because his Vice President pardoned him after he stepped down. So he did evade the law due to his power and that of his friend with power.
So do I believe that Clinton's power allows her to evade the law? You bet I do, along with many other politicians. Money is the only language. Who's to say she didn't learn from Nixon's mistakes and from other politicians and that accusations against her don't hold not because she is clean, but because she is slippery.
Personally, despite his many flaws and his big mouth and the fact that he will probably flush our government down the toilet, I think it's about time a non-politician was in power in our present day.
It probably won't happen though.
Maybe he will be worse.
Clinton: lawful evil fighter disguised as a lawful good paladin. Int18, Wis18, Cha18
Trump: chaotic neutral berserker who looks like a chaotic evil jester. Int18, Wis6, Cha7
(BTW, I don't mean any offense. I just thought it was important to correct some facts about Nixon and the implications drawn)
This video here isn't about Clinton herself, but it's a good example of the sort of thing I normally don't see coming from her detractors: concrete evidence of concrete action. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498587397/sting-video-purports-to-show-democrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud NPR reported on a video by James O'Keefe from Project Veritas. It seems that some affiliates of the DNC have been intentionally provoking folks at Trump rallies and trying to catch Trump supporters attacking people on tape. Scott Foval was recorded explaining his methods via a hidden camera. Seems like the Neutral Evil type. He's been fired since.
James O'Keefe, the maker of the video, has been accused of misleading editing in his videos in the past, and we don't have the raw unedited footage yet, but this particular example seems solid so far.
Although... now that I think about it, the footage isn't quite as scandalous as O'Keefe made it seem. Even Scott Foval wasn't actually inciting violence; he never suggested that his people throw punches at Trump supporters, or even push Trump supporters or make physical contact. What he did advocate was sending people out to Trump rallies wearing Planned Parenthood shirts or saying "Trump is a Nazi," neither of which is advocating violence.
In fact, it wouldn't even constitute "fighting words," which means they could legally fight back if they got attacked. Foval's people could legitimately claim self-defense, even if they were clearly hoping for a fight, simply because a normal person wouldn't react to those things with violence.
The video is shady, but I can't find any criminal activity in it. They weren't actually inciting violence; they were capitalizing on the fact that some Trump supporters were themselves itching for a fight.
Comments
Unless you believe the FBI, the Department of Justice, and even the Republican Party are all pawns of Hillary Clinton, I find it quite meaningful that none of them have scrounged up enough evidence to convict her of anything.
And when something vaguely shady does show up, I keep seeing her detractors fail to explain the actual damage caused by any of them. Her policy on Libya is one thing, but the emails? The speeches? Benghazi? I have yet to see anyone actually showing how any of those decisions caused real harm to anybody. There's a lot of insinuation, a lot of innuendo, and a lot of spooky shadows and scary rhetoric, but when Clinton gets accused of a crime, every charge falls apart under mild scrutiny.
We do have a legal system in America, contrary to what some seem to think. If somebody commits a crime, they can be prosecuted for it, no matter how rich or powerful they are. People act like Clinton's power allows her to evade the law. But our legal system isn't that weak. Richard Nixon couldn't evade it even when he was actually the president, and had all the power that the presidency entails.
Maybe the reason she survived so many accusations and so much scrutiny is because the accusations just don't hold water.
Honestly, the worst part of all this is that people are ignoring the most important things about her campaign. Instead of criticizing her platform, or her statements, or her voting record in the Senate, people are complaining about the most meaningless minutiae I can imagine.
I don't mean to be contrary, but my point is that political figures in our country have done some incredibly screwed up and illegal things and got away with it. The only reason Nixon was caught was because they made too many mistakes after a private reporter who freely put his neck on the line to expose the scandal despite the pawns, as you put it, who were doing illegal stuff and covering for Nixon in Operation Re-Elect the President and afterwards in an attempt to cover it all up. They just made way too many mistakes in a row for them to not be caught. Strangely enough, Nixon escaped jail time because his Vice President pardoned him after he stepped down. So he did evade the law due to his power and that of his friend with power.
So do I believe that Clinton's power allows her to evade the law? You bet I do, along with many other politicians. Money is the only language. Who's to say she didn't learn from Nixon's mistakes and from other politicians and that accusations against her don't hold not because she is clean, but because she is slippery.
Personally, despite his many flaws and his big mouth and the fact that he will probably flush our government down the toilet, I think it's about time a non-politician was in power in our present day.
It probably won't happen though.
Maybe he will be worse.
Clinton: lawful evil fighter disguised as a lawful good paladin. Int18, Wis18, Cha18
Trump: chaotic neutral berserker who looks like a chaotic evil jester. Int18, Wis6, Cha7
(BTW, I don't mean any offense. I just thought it was important to correct some facts about Nixon and the implications drawn)
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498587397/sting-video-purports-to-show-democrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud
NPR reported on a video by James O'Keefe from Project Veritas. It seems that some affiliates of the DNC have been intentionally provoking folks at Trump rallies and trying to catch Trump supporters attacking people on tape. Scott Foval was recorded explaining his methods via a hidden camera. Seems like the Neutral Evil type. He's been fired since.
James O'Keefe, the maker of the video, has been accused of misleading editing in his videos in the past, and we don't have the raw unedited footage yet, but this particular example seems solid so far.
In fact, it wouldn't even constitute "fighting words," which means they could legally fight back if they got attacked. Foval's people could legitimately claim self-defense, even if they were clearly hoping for a fight, simply because a normal person wouldn't react to those things with violence.
The video is shady, but I can't find any criminal activity in it. They weren't actually inciting violence; they were capitalizing on the fact that some Trump supporters were themselves itching for a fight.