The EU debate - Part III

I have a very nice life, thanks Kustard.

But if it makes you feel good to think otherwise, be my guest.!!...

 

I have a 7, it works very well..,

 

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue tbh.
I'm pretty sure the 6 wasn't available in 2009 when Hilary became secretary of state and I was responding to the point Pete was trying to make with regards to today's technology rather than historically.
That you edited out my comment about how people managed in the past just makes your point even less relevant.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Imagine Philip Green running as an independent and becoming PM. Good luck 'Merica

 

Obviously don't eat too many of them either you ****ing fat mess

 

sssh its 11

 

The problem here is that you are using the word 'cleared' in a non standard way. In US justice people are innocent unless proven guilty and following a trial people are said to be 'cleared' if they are not found guilty. The evidence against Clinton hasn't even led to a trial so she is innocent. It seems ridiculous to claim that she has not been 'cleared' when if the evidence had been stronger yet rejected by a court that is exactly the phraseology that would be used

 

Whereas right wingers persistently challenge the notion of innocence until proven guilty

 

why do you think that is limited to right wingers?

 

I didn't say it was!

 

you just wanted to ignore the rest of the population?

 

No.
In my experience (see a few posts up) right wingers more often want to 'lock people up' without a fair trail. I only comment about things that are within my experience. If I posted 'Fish swim in the sea' it wouldn't imply that I thought all other animals didn't.
You post stuff about what left-wingers believe all the time and I don't ask you to justify the exclusion of the rest of the population.
It's this sort of stuff that makes this forum less useful, it's pointless but hard to ignore once someone has posted it

 

has anybody on here said they think anybody should be locked up without a fair trial?

 

I've no idea, but it was a common chant at Trump rallies

 

no it wasn't
the chant was "lock her up"
that didn't mean without a fair trial
I don't think "lock her up after a fair trial" would be so effective as a chant

 

It appears that more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Are the USA ignoring the will of the people

 

More people also voted for UKIP than SNP and Lib Dems combined, but they only have 1 seat. everyone knew the rules beforehand

 

As the discussion is about neither, I'll just tick that down to another bit of shifting from you.

You said she was cleared, but you've posted nothing at all to prove that other than a sub editors scribbling in a newspaper headline.

I said that the FBI investigation concluded that there was evidence of crime, and that there would likely to be consequences for such actions in other cases, but that on balance, it wasn't seen as enough to justify proposing prosecution on this occasion. I posted the FBI report that says that.

 

Let's make this easier then:
Is Clinton innocent?
Is Clinton guilty?
is Clinton crooked?
As I tried to explain earlier she hasn't technically been 'cleared' because she has never been tried.