Sorry I thought I had linked these 2 posts asking your opinion on the above. Any are welcome to answer, I just linked several posters quite diligent in attacking Trump to see their view. @Aragorn@ActivitiesGuy@Bismark@anon50325502
We have a candidate who, afaik for the first time in U.S. history, is seriously arguing that the election is rigged against him, and his supporters seriously believe this.
Edit- Correction, it must be the second time- I think Andrew Jackson was the first.
The major difference between the two is that Jackson vowed to right the wrong in the next election, whereas the candidate we have now apparently plans to just declare the election voided if he loses.
I hate them both. She’s not innocent, which is why I’m not voting for a psychopath to hold office. But I can’t stand Trump amd his blatant disregard for anything remotely resembling policy or intelligence, and I’m not voting for a creep that stands against what I see as thebonly principles worth defending, therefore Im not voting for him either. I havent changed.
An obvious exasperated and frustrated Frank Luntz; the famous Republican Pollster; said this (after what was a eye-opening focus-group discussion of this election, that turned into a scream-fest):
“There is still the thinnest of threads that bind us together and the willingness, in certain situations, to listen and learn. But we’re one thread away from everything being cut. And that’s why Election Night is everything.”
“I want to know what those two candidates are going to say. Please. Your words have power”
“Find words that unite. Find words that unify. Because if you don’t, the consequences on the 9th, on the day after, will be horrific.”
I agree with what TB has written. I don’t believe Comey is acting in some sort of partisan way; however, I think he’s overstepped his position. He, in his own words, has basically said there is evidence that Clinton has been negligent with classified documents. A jury should be deciding if she guilty of Gross Neglience. He should have thrown it directly at Loretta Lynch’s and, by extension, Obama’s feet.
I have no argument because I personify what I dislike and I have too much of an ego to admit it. So, here’s a video from some clown in response to your very well written and thought out posts.
I read that a while back but was disturbed by the fact that the author didn’t make explicitly clear the fact that it wasn’t Section 793(f) specifically at issue in Gorin. 793(f) doesn’t have the same “intent” language as (a).
However, upon rereading, it would seem to me that per the Court’s reasoning in Gorin, either the scienter requirement must be acrobatically read into 793(f) or it is unconstitutionally vague (because it does have the “national defense” language that the Gorin scienter reading rescued from the Fifth/Sixth Amendment challenge).