@colin the US has been supporting saudis for decades now, its nothing new nor is it really noteworthy. the US funding extreme regimes around the world has been going on for 50+ years and i dont see trump of all ppl magically fixing it

im gonna do what the US didnt and pull out b4 i get too involved in this thread lmao u know where to find me bud  

It's not just about countries that are extreme regimes, it's about Hillary willingly helping an enemy of the state, and allowing them to have a say in how she acts, and you're right maybe Trump made a few business deals with people who ended up to support and fund these terrorist groups, but he was a business man, Hillary was secretary of state.

I'm not going to just pinpoint this on her though, because it is a major problem with American government doing these things  

In other words start importing from the second largest petroleum exporter: Russia.  

2 more days!

Might want to keep an eye on Lockheed Martin's stock before and after she gets sworn in. She is obsessed with money and war is just too profitable.

White people and police officers, get your self-esteem as low as possible in preparation. Get ready for a perverse and weird era of even more "social justice" in the US where playing the victim is how you get what you want. If you thought BLM was a joke, wait until you see the pandering when she gets into office. Political correctness is more important than truth.

Start reading up on the ugliness that spread through Germany when they opened up to thousands and thousands of additional Syrian refugees. We're going to see a 500%+ increase, so it'd be good to know what you might be in for.

If you were banking on impeachment then don't get your hopes up. She can't be impeached for the crimes she committed before getting into office.

Enjoy your ****ed up health care and remember to set expectations extremely low. Let's consider it a successful term in office if she doesn't get us into a conflict or full-fledged war with Russia.  

Posted by Thallen

If you were banking on impeachment then don't get your hopes up. She can't be impeached for the crimes she committed before getting into office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-b...b_9196502.html

There's still hope!

TL;DR for the website:

Nor is it true, historically, that impeachment proceedings have been limited to offenses committed after accused officials have been elected or appointed to their current offices. To cite two examples discussed in the CRS report:

● In 1912, Judge Robert Archbald was impeached and convicted while serving on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the short-lived United States Commerce Court (which was disbanded in 1913) in part because he had accepted gifts from litigants and lawyers and committed other corrupt practices while working previously as a federal district court judge.

● More recently and even more on point, federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous was convicted in 2010 by a Senate vote of 96-0 on four articles of impeachment, two of which concerned financial corruption that began while he was a state court judge in Louisiana in the 1980s, and a third that alleged he had made false statements to the Senate and the FBI in connection with his appointment to the federal bench. The articles passed in his case were signed and certified by Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker and current a Hillary Clinton backer.

But that's why Obama will just pardon her after she wins the election...  

"G. Thomas Porteous was convicted in 2010 by a Senate vote of 96-0 on four articles of impeachment, ..., and a third that alleged he had made false statements to the Senate and the FBI"

Hillary did that a bunch of times though... "the articles passed in his case were signed and certified by Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker and current a Hillary Clinton backer."

Oh yah forgot all of these people are scum, the law only applies when it benefits them  

Posted by PigParty

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-b...b_9196502.html

There's still hope!

TL;DR for the website:



But that's why Obama will just pardon her after she wins the election...

You do realize that the Huffington Post is the equivalent of a gossip magazine? It is not allowed in any universities as a source for scholarly journals nor are any of its facts or data legitimate.  

Posted by iMac

You do realize that the Huffington Post is the equivalent of a gossip magazine? It is not allowed in any universities as a source for scholarly journals nor are any of its facts or data legitimate.

It's not allowed to be used as a scholarly journal just like most news site lol, you claim none of their facts are legitimate but what he just quoted is 100% complete fact, searching "G Thomas Porteous" alone will turn up over 20 results of news site discussing his impeachment.

So, yes, their article on whether or not she could face impeachment is both accurate and true.

Trump is racist??
http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/clinton-crack-768x761.png (Unsupported image host)
Corey Ciorciari, Policy Advisor at Hillary for America
NAACP = National Association for the Advancement of Colored People  

Posted by Colin

It's not allowed to be used as a scholarly journal just like most news site lol, you claim none of their facts are legitimate but what he just quoted is 100% complete fact, searching "G Thomas Porteous" alone will turn up over 20 results of news site discussing his impeachment.

So, yes, their article on whether or not she could face impeachment is both accurate and true.

Not true. As a writer, I use plenty of news sites for my journals. However, it is a known fact that Huffington Post is a no go zone.
I am not saying that the ideas or facts are illegitimate, however, I am saying that because it is coming from that site, it becomes illegitimate. Being from that site reduces the legitimacy.

Given, I am not a liberal, I am conservative. I am simply stating that the information provided cannot be given legitimacy due to where it is from. The Huffington post aggregates their news, and mainly consists of blogs which are not peer reviewed. In all thought, it is on the level of the Enquirer for its news.  

ahh so ur one of those guys who believes it's illegal to look at the Hillary e-mails unless you ask CNN first

2016 and still thinking news is accurate and big news channel don't aggregate or ever post illegitimate content

also, what they were posting isn't even news, they are citing real valid factual news and writing their opinion on it, it is in an article where they express their viewpoint in the given situation and backed up their opinion using FACTS, ur calling them out for "using news site for their journals" when you said so yourself that as a writer you do the same thing (which is why they did it)  

Posted by Thallen

2 more days!

Might want to keep an eye on Lockheed Martin's stock before and after she gets sworn in. She is obsessed with money and war is just too profitable.

White people and police officers, get your self-esteem as low as possible in preparation. Get ready for a perverse and weird era of even more "social justice" in the US where playing the victim is how you get what you want. If you thought BLM was a joke, wait until you see the pandering when she gets into office. Political correctness is more important than truth.

Start reading up on the ugliness that spread through Germany when they opened up to thousands and thousands of additional Syrian refugees. We're going to see a 500%+ increase, so it'd be good to know what you might be in for.

If you were banking on impeachment then don't get your hopes up. She can't be impeached for the crimes she committed before getting into office.

Enjoy your ****ed up health care and remember to set expectations extremely low. Let's consider it a successful term in office if she doesn't get us into a conflict or full-fledged war with Russia.

lol  

Posted by Colin

ahh so ur one of those guys who believes it's illegal to look at the Hillary e-mails unless you ask CNN first

2016 and still thinking news is accurate

I find CNN to be a biased network. So in that sense, no. Why would it be up to a network to decide whether it one is preforming illegal acts or not? It is from her superiors and those holding her accountable that she should be judged for her illegal acts.
However, the problem that we are facing is biased networks. We, as American citizens, will be the ones to hold her accountable. During this election we are the ones judging her. We are the jury that is her trial. The outcome of what happens to her, and what will happens to this country is dependent on what actions we take.
However, unlike a normal trial, where all biased news coverage is blocked off during the trial, we the jury is allowed all access during this election. This is why Hillary is still able to stay in this race, and why media coverage is bashing Trump.
Media is currently owned by Hillary's supporters, which pertains to the idea of why there is so much difficulty finding a solid, non-biased, outlet for understanding what is going on during the election. Given, there are independent news outlets, but these are sometimes illegitimate, or not peer reviewed, so they can cause problems when sourced.  

Posted by iMac

Not true. As a writer, I use plenty of news sites for my journals. However, it is a known fact that Huffington Post is a no go zone.
I am not saying that the ideas or facts are illegitimate, however, I am saying that because it is coming from that site, it becomes illegitimate. Being from that site reduces the legitimacy.

Given, I am not a liberal, I am conservative. I am simply stating that the information provided cannot be given legitimacy due to where it is from. The Huffington post aggregates their news, and mainly consists of blogs which are not peer reviewed. In all thought, it is on the level of the Enquirer for its news.

You know you're less credible than the Huffington post? So your illegitemate post saying The Huffington Post isn't credible is not credible itself.

Thanks for letting me know that if I was writing a college paper in which my professors only allow me to use .gov websites or scholarly articles, I would not be allowed to use that as a reference. I greatly appreciate your irrelevant post, criticizing me for using that as a reference in a Graal forum. Your knowledge amazes me.  

Posted by PigParty

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-b...b_9196502.html

There's still hope!

TL;DR for the website:



But that's why Obama will just pardon her after she wins the election...

I saw this posted on Reddit this week, but I won't be putting my chips on these two fringe instances. Especially since, like you said, Obama can just pardon her as was done with Nixon.

There have been more than just these two though, but those are the more significant ones. Instead of "can't," as in it's out of the realm of possibility, I should say she won't. I think the FBI concluding their "second look" at her emails makes it even less likely. People are getting exhausted by hearing about her criminal investigations. The more it happens, the cleaner it makes her appear.  

Posted by PigParty

You know you're less credible than the Huffington post? So your illegitemate post saying The Huffington Post isn't credible is not credible itself.

Thanks for letting me know that if I was writing a college paper in which my professors only allow me to use .gov websites or scholarly articles, I would not be allowed to use that as a reference. I greatly appreciate your irrelevant post, criticizing me for using that as a reference in a Graal forum. Your knowledge amazes me.

Your ignorance is actually quite hilarious. You'd think that your simple mind might be capable of understanding what "aggregated news" is. However, I think I may have given you too much credit.
So that you now know, an aggregated news site basically steals news and uses other news networks sources for their own writing. Their writers are basically “professional bloggers”, not journalists.
Given, the Huffington post has recently "upped their game" per se, in hiring more legitimate writers along with a few actual journalists. But it does not change the fact that it is an aggregated news site. And even more so, has been listed as one of the top 10 most anti-science websites on the internet, producing a large portion of pseudoscience news.
The Huffington post is merely for entertainment purposes. Unless the writer is qualified to write about that subject, it’s not a credible source.