Search results

Hillary will be a continuation of Obama's Presidency on steroids. She'll run on that platform too, with the overwhelming delight of most Democrats. She'll pander to all her interests groups in spades. Open borders, larger amnesty, federalized policing, mass releasing of criminals, to name a few...

The Democrat party is growing more and more liberal. A candidate moving right will alienate the vast majority of Democratic voters.

The republicans will do their part too to ensure a Hillary victory. They will think she'll lose because she is a too far left candidate. They will also think that all they have to do is nominate a 'moderate' ( liberal) republican like a Jeb Bush (win Florida) for President and a John Kasich( win...

I don't know why you think she will lose. The Democratic Party is growing more liberal everyday. She will run as the most liberal candidate in the history of Democrats. She'll out lib O'Malley and even make Bernie Sanders blush with her liberalishness.

For once we agree. Two dogs think alike. ( puggy-- pug. Get it?)

Which lesson? Democrats nominating a more 'moderate' candidate or Republicans nominating a more 'conservative' candidate?

Very few of them left in the Democratic Party to make a difference. The ones that are independent voters may not vote for her too, but it still won't matter. Just ask Romney. He won the independent vote and still lost.

What is an everyday voter? Mark my word, when all said and done, If Hillary gets the nomination, she'll have widespread democratic support. And she'll campaign as the most liberal candidate yet. Even more so than Obama. In the end, the Dems will back her overwhelmingly.

She should win. She has the Dems in her back pocket.

It looks like the possible abuse happened a long time ago. Hastert quit being a teacher and coach in the very early 1980s. The statute of limitations is usually 12 years after the victims 18th birthday to file charges Article excerpt: State statutes, in most child sexual abuse cases occurring...

True, granting immunity to someone who possibly was extorting Hastert doesn't seem right or fair. You would think extorting someone would trump illegal withdrawals from a bank to pay the extortionist.

Extorting someone is an illegal act. Money gained from that illegal act should be returned. Although, as of now, no extortion charges have been brought, so that issue is in limbo. If the 'victim' wanted to receive monetary damages, he should have done it legally in a civil court. I'm not sure...

Yes

More like a gangster paradise.

Their job now is to respond to calls from dispatch of crimes and emergencies involving the public. The other stuff isn't their job anymore. Baltimore citizens don't want the police around. They have spoken. So the police ARE doing their job. Whatever higher crime and murders that occur...it's...

Criminals feeling more empowered to commit crimes.

More crime.

They're doing their jobs. I haven't heard reports that they aren't answering radio calls.

They no longer have the test bullets from the gun from thirty years ago-missing evidence. The crime scene bullets were mutilated, according to the D.A. who didn't prosecute the case again. The deterioration could have possibly occurred in the barrel of the gun. It was an old gun to begin with...

They couldn't rule out that the gun could have been used in the crimes.