The Democrats, under Clinton, shut down the NK nuclear program.
Even as they immediately started up a separate enrichment program, more or less immediately. Don't lecture about the facts and then leave the important ones out.
I'm sure glad we've got a level-headed leader with years of experience in international diplomacy!
You mean like the LAST level-headed leader with zero executive experience who allowed this problem to actually GET where it is today because of his completely feckless foreign policy? We shouldn't even be HAVING this discussion, as this issue should have been dealt with sometime over the last eight years at least. Or better yet, the "agreed framework" under Clinton should have been something less than a complete punk-job on us by the NKs who were well on their way to getting this program going.
That's a relief! We were running short of people spending all of their airtime bashing deplorables and Trump. I mean, there's almost nobody doing that anymore, so somebody has to pick up the slack.
So, let's get this straight: you think that the ACA does NOT require you to buy insurance or pay a fine if you do not. You think that the imposition of that fine and the enforcement of its collection is NOT the responsibility of the IRS. Please, do tell, how these things are handled, instead, in your imaginary world? Details, please, all about your alternate reality. Can't wait to hear how it is you're subject to a different law than the rest of us. Looking forward to the specifics.
Don't add all the drama to try to make it seem worse than it already is.
I'm not ADDING drama, at all. I'm simply describing the thing the way it actually is, instead of trying to obfuscate it the way that the Democrats did when they wrote it, and the way they continue to do now while attempting to explain that it's really just fine. They can't talk honestly about it, ever. When the CBO says that 20 million people who are currently being forced to buy expensive insurance programs would promptly CHOOSE stop doing so if they weren't required to by the Democrats' law, they Democrats refer to those people likely being anxious to jump ship as "having their health care taken away." Which is pure nonsense. But that's exactly the sort of disingenuous crap that sold the law in the first place, and which is being used to falsely villify anyone who even dares to suggest that the whole thing is a disaster and must be structurally, fundamentally altered.
Except the insurance company is also supposed to apply how likely the event is to happen to the cost of it happening.
No, they cannot take that into account. That's part of the law's structure. Sorry! Your health or your likelihood to produce the huge costs associated with having cancer or having a baby can no longer impact them selling you insurance or how they price it. All prices are government approved. Each new huge premium increase is run past government insurance regulators. If the insurer says the math simply doesn't work, they have one option: leave. Which they are doing in droves, because this is causing them to lose billions of dollars unless they get bailed out by taxpayers.
Don't buy it, you face a monetary penalty. You dont get hauled to court, or prison.
If you don't buy it, you face a monetary penalty. And that penalty is enforced by the IRS, with powers to garnish wages, seize property, and ultimately jail you if you don't pay what you owe plus the interest and penalties. Quite pretending your don't know how IRS enforcement works. That's the whole REASON the Democrats made the law something that the IRS controls, where the rubber meets the road. To frighten even people who can't possibly afford to buy this product into doing it anyway, or face federal legal consequences.
I wont argue whether it is a tax or insurance
Why would you? It's a tax. That's settled, after a trip through multiple courts. But unlike that small portion of your income tax that goes to discretionary spending (like on schools, or the Coast Guard), the Democrats wouldn't (and still won't) acknowledge that they designed a tax to be taken from just some people, and to be given as an entitlement to other people. Structurally. Permanently. It's a welfare tax and entitlement program, and that's just what they like, but they won't even use simple honest language when talking about it. Who do you find trying to convince you that the minority of people who may the vast majority of the income taxes in the country, some of which goes to things like military spending, isn't what it is? Be specific. Is it the Republicans who are telling you that your income tax and military spending are really something else? Perhaps you mis-heard what somebody said. Not to be confused with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lying to their own party to convince people in their ranks to support the ACA by deliberately misrepresenting it as something that it wasn't.
If your insurer is charging you premiums for things that you both know will never happen...
You don't understand: they have no choice. The Democrats' ACA law REQUIRES them to provide me with coverage for maternity, drug treatment, and mental health problems whether or not our family wants or needs to be insured in those areas. 80-year-old NUNS have to buy insurance that covers the possibility of them having babies. This is why the Democrats' law is (as the Supreme Court found it to be) a tax, not insurance. I have to buy it, or face legal jeopardy. The insurers have to provide it, or face being shut down for violating the law.
... then something is seriously fucked up.
Correct, it is. The law was deliberately crafted by the Democrats to create this exact situation, and of course it is unsustainable. They knew it when they wrote the bill and lied about it, and they know it now. They WISH the law had been repealed so that the collapse of what it forces on people wouldn't be on them. But it is.
Really? Our carrier says that no, without the Obamacare mandates requiring them to insure us against the costs of things that will never happen (we're not going to be having babies, for example), that no - they would not have quadrupled our premiums and quintupled our deductibles. The impact of Obamacare has been absolutely crushing, and pulls so much more of some family's monthly cash flow out of their pockets and into insurance they can't actually use, that they are now stuck paying for healthcare they can't have, and failing to meet other expenses while they're at it. Yeah, "Affordable" Health Care act indeed. Liberals are too afraid to simply call it what it is: a huge new tax on some people, to subsidize welfare-style care given to other people while reducing the care that the people actually footing the bill can get for themselves.
But no, it wasn't a massive screw up. It's exactly what the Democrats wanted: fantastically higher prices and denial of services for a group of people they don't care about, and new entitlements to those that they assume will vote for them. The only screw up was how blatantly they lied about the ACA's consequences (you can keep your doctor and your plan! insurance will go down by $2500 per family! your insurance will only cost about as your mobile phone bill each month! it won't add to the deficit!... and all of the other bald-faced lies they knew they were telling, and without which they wouldn't have been able to ram it through their political gamesmanship with a fifth of the country's economy on a 100% partisan basis).
So "it" was already cheap, and now it's ten times cheaper? What does that even mean? How about "one tenth the cost of CNC milling the part" or "one tenth the cost of lost wax casting" or... something that actually means something?
Yeah, yeah, cherry pick away. Go to as much trouble as you can in your anonymous cowardice to avoid the fact that the FBI in, say, 2000, performed under 9 million background checks, but is now performing well over 20 million a year. Or that manufacturing for the US retail market has more that doubled in just the years Obama was in office. Or that notorious gun pimping paper, the New York Times, reports that the most rapidly growing presence in gun ownership and shooting sports is female, or that known puppet of the NRA, NBC News, reports that extensive interviews at the retail and manufacturing level and at ranges show a surge in new business from African American customers. Or that state-issued permits for concealed carry have surged by almost 2 million in the last 12 months alone, with minorities and women making up most of that new activity. But please, cherry pick some more so you can wish reality away, as you always do, coward.
1) You are dedicated to remaining deliberately ignorant of the facts: violence, including that conducted with firearms, has been going steadily down for decades, even as personal lawful gun ownership has gone way, way up. You seem to be suggesting that gun ownership causes murder, but aren't reconciling the fact that far, far more legal gun ownership is corresponding with a dramatic drop in violent crimes, including crimes involving gun use. In other words, you are purposefully avoiding reality in order to cling to irrational rhetoric.
2) You don't actually understand what an assault rifle is. There are very few of them legally owned in the US, and the people who own them require extensive background checks, federal licensing, and are subject to un-announced federal inspection of the facilities in which they securely store them. Such weapons cost thousands of dollars, and nobody (outside of law enforcement) is even able to buy one that's been manufactured in the last few decades. Your ignorance on this topic is either a sign of your intellectual laziness, or a sign that you're faking it, so you can try to make drama queen rhetorical points based on lies you know you're telling.
It's not about guns. More people are killed with sticks, pipes, and bare hands in the US than by the use of any sort of rifle or shotgun, legally owned/used or not, including accidents, murders, and suicides. With handguns, the vast majority of all murders involve guns NOT legally owned, and which are used in gang-related violence. And those people aren't the least bit interested in how legal, or not, things are. Which is the whole point. Regardless, gun ownership in the US has spiked enormously to record numbers, even as crime generally and murders involving the use of a firearm are down and have been going down for decades. The correlation between legal gun ownership and crime is a NEGATIVE one.
And he was squashed by a woman who said she'd certainly consider an Australia-style confiscation program, and who said she considers the Supreme Court to have been in error as they ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. In other words, you're exactly incorrect.
That would also enable the use of the gun as a deterrent rather as the judge, jury, and executioner.
What? So, if the gun works when and as the owner wants it to, you consider that a risk to the lives of the people who do home invasions. But if people's guns are hobbled to the point that they can't work well enough to hurt the person invading the home, then that's going to be a good deterrent... how, exactly? That's not a deterrent, it's an invitation to break in armed with nothing but a pointy stick, because the homeowner can't hurt you in self defense with the electronically broken gun.
Right. Because millions of people have pooled their resources to make sure that the Second Amendment's protections are still intact, despite people like Hillary Clinton saying she'd happily consider an Australian-style confiscation program, and that the Supreme Court made an error in the Heller decision (meaning that she and her supporters consider their knowingly incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment to be desirable, never mind the amendment's plain meaning and vast library of supporting correspondence, speeches, and deliberations from the people who wrote and ratified it). You want hyperbole? Just look at the would-be gun grabbers and their stated willingness to disregard the constitution in their pursuit of control.
The problem is that this should never even have COME to a court. The employee is using the employer's time, bandwidth, and equipment and collecting a paycheck from them while actually doing work for another company, presumably also being paid for that. Court? There's no court needed to simply fire someone that's abusing their trusted position. You abused your job here, and we're not going to pay you any more, goodbye. Why does a court need to get involved in that private matter between two parties? The employee can quit when they want to, and so can the employer.
It's so fun when you change the subject because you don't like the point being made: it's not about Clinton, it's about GP's hypocrisy and lying. The GP made it about Clinton, and since the entire media panty-knotting since November has been entirely about how angry they are that not all Americans obeyed and voted for the Clintons, it's worth pointing out when yet another person (like the GP) is still working their hardest to revise history... for what, it's never clear - mostly, one presumes, to avoid having to ever, once, talk substance of any kind. Sort of like you!
I bet there are plenty of people who don't go to sports games in countries where "hooligans" are a big problem. They don't want to be involved, and that's understandable. When that happens to the democratic process I think the punishment should be a lot more severe than intimidating people from going to a soccer game.
It's not going to happen as long as the staff and editorial writers in places like Berkeley actually praise the violent leftist thugs who literally beat people bloody and unconscious to prevent words they don't like from being spoken and heard. As long as the left holds sway over the majority of the education experience, their natural instinct to use violent to silence those who don't do proper Good Group Think isn't going to go away. Happily, the rational people still see that sort of lefty fascistic brown-shirting for what it is, and as long as the Democrats keep cheering on the smash-burn-and-beatings foot soldiers of their party, and the rest of the country will continue to refuse to be ruled by a few counties in California and New York.
I know, not having Hillary as president doesn't feel like enough punishment for the people willing to beat and burn in the name of progressivism, but it's better than nothing. Well, that and a couple dozen felony convictions would be nice.
So what are you saying? That the National Guard had been sending emails and social media messages back and forth for months talking about how they couldn't wait to kill some people, but everyone shouldn't forget to wear their black masks? Yeah, great analogy.
You're confusing "things being found" with "things failing to be prosecuted because of the very corruption that the Clintons embody."
The Clintons' behavior has left a huge wake of OTHER people having the careers ruined, going to jail, killing themselves out of disgust, and of course millions and millions of dollars going right into their personal bank account even while she was Secretary of State presiding over deals with countries that handed her and her husband cash. Your notion that the Clintons aren't corrupt would be cute and funny if we thought you actually believed it, but since you and I both know you're lying, it's not cute, or funny. Well, it's kind of funny. Because millions of voters saw through it and denied her what she demanded. That WAS funny.
But Hillary's lack of being crowned as she demanded and expected was just the latest in a series of events that cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, and millions of two-time Obama voters who were disgusted by Clinton/DNC overt behavior, never mind reading their obnoxious internal communications. Comey didn't cause Hillary to call millions of the people over whom she wanted to preside irredeemably deplorable racists. Neither Comey nor the Russians used mind control rays to cause Hillary to somehow forget to even set foot in Wisconsin to try to tell the people there something vaguely coherent about why she and her husband should once again get the executive power they craved and with which they enriched themselves.
But please, keep blaming it all on everything except the Democrats' years of snark, sneering condescension and their hatred for the people in flyover country... you know, the ones who denied her the electoral college.
That almost sounds like something that a protest turned into. No. These clowns planned violence for months - it was their purpose in gathering together. It's a shame that some of their idiotic fellow protesters either were or pretended to be so dumb that they were standing around in the middle of a bunch of them and got caught up. But since the rioters were broadcasting their intentions well in advance, and were dancing around with black masks on smashing stuff... well, too bad if you hang out with those tools.
If by "breaking windows" you mean things like "trashing a poor guy's car, the thing he uses to make a living" and whatnot, yeah, convict. Especially since they planned, in advance, to commit violence and then did it. Unlike your Russia delusion, these people actually DID commit crimes, and got caught doing it, violently, on video.
Slashdot Mirror
The Democrats, under Clinton, shut down the NK nuclear program.
Even as they immediately started up a separate enrichment program, more or less immediately. Don't lecture about the facts and then leave the important ones out.
I'm sure glad we've got a level-headed leader with years of experience in international diplomacy!
You mean like the LAST level-headed leader with zero executive experience who allowed this problem to actually GET where it is today because of his completely feckless foreign policy? We shouldn't even be HAVING this discussion, as this issue should have been dealt with sometime over the last eight years at least. Or better yet, the "agreed framework" under Clinton should have been something less than a complete punk-job on us by the NKs who were well on their way to getting this program going.
That's a relief! We were running short of people spending all of their airtime bashing deplorables and Trump. I mean, there's almost nobody doing that anymore, so somebody has to pick up the slack.
So, let's get this straight: you think that the ACA does NOT require you to buy insurance or pay a fine if you do not. You think that the imposition of that fine and the enforcement of its collection is NOT the responsibility of the IRS. Please, do tell, how these things are handled, instead, in your imaginary world? Details, please, all about your alternate reality. Can't wait to hear how it is you're subject to a different law than the rest of us. Looking forward to the specifics.
Don't add all the drama to try to make it seem worse than it already is.
I'm not ADDING drama, at all. I'm simply describing the thing the way it actually is, instead of trying to obfuscate it the way that the Democrats did when they wrote it, and the way they continue to do now while attempting to explain that it's really just fine. They can't talk honestly about it, ever. When the CBO says that 20 million people who are currently being forced to buy expensive insurance programs would promptly CHOOSE stop doing so if they weren't required to by the Democrats' law, they Democrats refer to those people likely being anxious to jump ship as "having their health care taken away." Which is pure nonsense. But that's exactly the sort of disingenuous crap that sold the law in the first place, and which is being used to falsely villify anyone who even dares to suggest that the whole thing is a disaster and must be structurally, fundamentally altered.
Except the insurance company is also supposed to apply how likely the event is to happen to the cost of it happening.
No, they cannot take that into account. That's part of the law's structure. Sorry! Your health or your likelihood to produce the huge costs associated with having cancer or having a baby can no longer impact them selling you insurance or how they price it. All prices are government approved. Each new huge premium increase is run past government insurance regulators. If the insurer says the math simply doesn't work, they have one option: leave. Which they are doing in droves, because this is causing them to lose billions of dollars unless they get bailed out by taxpayers.
Don't buy it, you face a monetary penalty. You dont get hauled to court, or prison.
If you don't buy it, you face a monetary penalty. And that penalty is enforced by the IRS, with powers to garnish wages, seize property, and ultimately jail you if you don't pay what you owe plus the interest and penalties. Quite pretending your don't know how IRS enforcement works. That's the whole REASON the Democrats made the law something that the IRS controls, where the rubber meets the road. To frighten even people who can't possibly afford to buy this product into doing it anyway, or face federal legal consequences.
I wont argue whether it is a tax or insurance
Why would you? It's a tax. That's settled, after a trip through multiple courts. But unlike that small portion of your income tax that goes to discretionary spending (like on schools, or the Coast Guard), the Democrats wouldn't (and still won't) acknowledge that they designed a tax to be taken from just some people, and to be given as an entitlement to other people. Structurally. Permanently. It's a welfare tax and entitlement program, and that's just what they like, but they won't even use simple honest language when talking about it. Who do you find trying to convince you that the minority of people who may the vast majority of the income taxes in the country, some of which goes to things like military spending, isn't what it is? Be specific. Is it the Republicans who are telling you that your income tax and military spending are really something else? Perhaps you mis-heard what somebody said. Not to be confused with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lying to their own party to convince people in their ranks to support the ACA by deliberately misrepresenting it as something that it wasn't.
If your insurer is charging you premiums for things that you both know will never happen...
You don't understand: they have no choice. The Democrats' ACA law REQUIRES them to provide me with coverage for maternity, drug treatment, and mental health problems whether or not our family wants or needs to be insured in those areas. 80-year-old NUNS have to buy insurance that covers the possibility of them having babies. This is why the Democrats' law is (as the Supreme Court found it to be) a tax, not insurance. I have to buy it, or face legal jeopardy. The insurers have to provide it, or face being shut down for violating the law.
... then something is seriously fucked up.
Correct, it is. The law was deliberately crafted by the Democrats to create this exact situation, and of course it is unsustainable. They knew it when they wrote the bill and lied about it, and they know it now. They WISH the law had been repealed so that the collapse of what it forces on people wouldn't be on them. But it is.
Really? Our carrier says that no, without the Obamacare mandates requiring them to insure us against the costs of things that will never happen (we're not going to be having babies, for example), that no - they would not have quadrupled our premiums and quintupled our deductibles. The impact of Obamacare has been absolutely crushing, and pulls so much more of some family's monthly cash flow out of their pockets and into insurance they can't actually use, that they are now stuck paying for healthcare they can't have, and failing to meet other expenses while they're at it. Yeah, "Affordable" Health Care act indeed. Liberals are too afraid to simply call it what it is: a huge new tax on some people, to subsidize welfare-style care given to other people while reducing the care that the people actually footing the bill can get for themselves.
... and all of the other bald-faced lies they knew they were telling, and without which they wouldn't have been able to ram it through their political gamesmanship with a fifth of the country's economy on a 100% partisan basis).
But no, it wasn't a massive screw up. It's exactly what the Democrats wanted: fantastically higher prices and denial of services for a group of people they don't care about, and new entitlements to those that they assume will vote for them. The only screw up was how blatantly they lied about the ACA's consequences (you can keep your doctor and your plan! insurance will go down by $2500 per family! your insurance will only cost about as your mobile phone bill each month! it won't add to the deficit!
So "it" was already cheap, and now it's ten times cheaper? What does that even mean? How about "one tenth the cost of CNC milling the part" or "one tenth the cost of lost wax casting" or ... something that actually means something?
Yeah, yeah, cherry pick away. Go to as much trouble as you can in your anonymous cowardice to avoid the fact that the FBI in, say, 2000, performed under 9 million background checks, but is now performing well over 20 million a year. Or that manufacturing for the US retail market has more that doubled in just the years Obama was in office. Or that notorious gun pimping paper, the New York Times, reports that the most rapidly growing presence in gun ownership and shooting sports is female, or that known puppet of the NRA, NBC News, reports that extensive interviews at the retail and manufacturing level and at ranges show a surge in new business from African American customers. Or that state-issued permits for concealed carry have surged by almost 2 million in the last 12 months alone, with minorities and women making up most of that new activity. But please, cherry pick some more so you can wish reality away, as you always do, coward.
So what you're saying is:
1) You are dedicated to remaining deliberately ignorant of the facts: violence, including that conducted with firearms, has been going steadily down for decades, even as personal lawful gun ownership has gone way, way up. You seem to be suggesting that gun ownership causes murder, but aren't reconciling the fact that far, far more legal gun ownership is corresponding with a dramatic drop in violent crimes, including crimes involving gun use. In other words, you are purposefully avoiding reality in order to cling to irrational rhetoric.
2) You don't actually understand what an assault rifle is. There are very few of them legally owned in the US, and the people who own them require extensive background checks, federal licensing, and are subject to un-announced federal inspection of the facilities in which they securely store them. Such weapons cost thousands of dollars, and nobody (outside of law enforcement) is even able to buy one that's been manufactured in the last few decades. Your ignorance on this topic is either a sign of your intellectual laziness, or a sign that you're faking it, so you can try to make drama queen rhetorical points based on lies you know you're telling.
It's not about guns. More people are killed with sticks, pipes, and bare hands in the US than by the use of any sort of rifle or shotgun, legally owned/used or not, including accidents, murders, and suicides. With handguns, the vast majority of all murders involve guns NOT legally owned, and which are used in gang-related violence. And those people aren't the least bit interested in how legal, or not, things are. Which is the whole point. Regardless, gun ownership in the US has spiked enormously to record numbers, even as crime generally and murders involving the use of a firearm are down and have been going down for decades. The correlation between legal gun ownership and crime is a NEGATIVE one.
Bernie f'in Sanders got an A from the NRA.
And he was squashed by a woman who said she'd certainly consider an Australia-style confiscation program, and who said she considers the Supreme Court to have been in error as they ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. In other words, you're exactly incorrect.
That would also enable the use of the gun as a deterrent rather as the judge, jury, and executioner.
What? So, if the gun works when and as the owner wants it to, you consider that a risk to the lives of the people who do home invasions. But if people's guns are hobbled to the point that they can't work well enough to hurt the person invading the home, then that's going to be a good deterrent ... how, exactly? That's not a deterrent, it's an invitation to break in armed with nothing but a pointy stick, because the homeowner can't hurt you in self defense with the electronically broken gun.
Right. Because millions of people have pooled their resources to make sure that the Second Amendment's protections are still intact, despite people like Hillary Clinton saying she'd happily consider an Australian-style confiscation program, and that the Supreme Court made an error in the Heller decision (meaning that she and her supporters consider their knowingly incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment to be desirable, never mind the amendment's plain meaning and vast library of supporting correspondence, speeches, and deliberations from the people who wrote and ratified it). You want hyperbole? Just look at the would-be gun grabbers and their stated willingness to disregard the constitution in their pursuit of control.
The problem is that this should never even have COME to a court. The employee is using the employer's time, bandwidth, and equipment and collecting a paycheck from them while actually doing work for another company, presumably also being paid for that. Court? There's no court needed to simply fire someone that's abusing their trusted position. You abused your job here, and we're not going to pay you any more, goodbye. Why does a court need to get involved in that private matter between two parties? The employee can quit when they want to, and so can the employer.
It's so fun when you change the subject because you don't like the point being made: it's not about Clinton, it's about GP's hypocrisy and lying. The GP made it about Clinton, and since the entire media panty-knotting since November has been entirely about how angry they are that not all Americans obeyed and voted for the Clintons, it's worth pointing out when yet another person (like the GP) is still working their hardest to revise history ... for what, it's never clear - mostly, one presumes, to avoid having to ever, once, talk substance of any kind. Sort of like you!
I bet there are plenty of people who don't go to sports games in countries where "hooligans" are a big problem. They don't want to be involved, and that's understandable. When that happens to the democratic process I think the punishment should be a lot more severe than intimidating people from going to a soccer game.
It's not going to happen as long as the staff and editorial writers in places like Berkeley actually praise the violent leftist thugs who literally beat people bloody and unconscious to prevent words they don't like from being spoken and heard. As long as the left holds sway over the majority of the education experience, their natural instinct to use violent to silence those who don't do proper Good Group Think isn't going to go away. Happily, the rational people still see that sort of lefty fascistic brown-shirting for what it is, and as long as the Democrats keep cheering on the smash-burn-and-beatings foot soldiers of their party, and the rest of the country will continue to refuse to be ruled by a few counties in California and New York.
I know, not having Hillary as president doesn't feel like enough punishment for the people willing to beat and burn in the name of progressivism, but it's better than nothing. Well, that and a couple dozen felony convictions would be nice.
So what are you saying? That the National Guard had been sending emails and social media messages back and forth for months talking about how they couldn't wait to kill some people, but everyone shouldn't forget to wear their black masks? Yeah, great analogy.
You're confusing "things being found" with "things failing to be prosecuted because of the very corruption that the Clintons embody."
The Clintons' behavior has left a huge wake of OTHER people having the careers ruined, going to jail, killing themselves out of disgust, and of course millions and millions of dollars going right into their personal bank account even while she was Secretary of State presiding over deals with countries that handed her and her husband cash. Your notion that the Clintons aren't corrupt would be cute and funny if we thought you actually believed it, but since you and I both know you're lying, it's not cute, or funny. Well, it's kind of funny. Because millions of voters saw through it and denied her what she demanded. That WAS funny.
Mmm, Prime Baclava. Which isn't the same thing as a balaclava. But still.
You keep telling yourself that.
... you know, the ones who denied her the electoral college.
But Hillary's lack of being crowned as she demanded and expected was just the latest in a series of events that cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, and millions of two-time Obama voters who were disgusted by Clinton/DNC overt behavior, never mind reading their obnoxious internal communications. Comey didn't cause Hillary to call millions of the people over whom she wanted to preside irredeemably deplorable racists. Neither Comey nor the Russians used mind control rays to cause Hillary to somehow forget to even set foot in Wisconsin to try to tell the people there something vaguely coherent about why she and her husband should once again get the executive power they craved and with which they enriched themselves.
But please, keep blaming it all on everything except the Democrats' years of snark, sneering condescension and their hatred for the people in flyover country
They crossed the line when they decided to riot.
That almost sounds like something that a protest turned into. No. These clowns planned violence for months - it was their purpose in gathering together. It's a shame that some of their idiotic fellow protesters either were or pretended to be so dumb that they were standing around in the middle of a bunch of them and got caught up. But since the rioters were broadcasting their intentions well in advance, and were dancing around with black masks on smashing stuff ... well, too bad if you hang out with those tools.
If by "breaking windows" you mean things like "trashing a poor guy's car, the thing he uses to make a living" and whatnot, yeah, convict. Especially since they planned, in advance, to commit violence and then did it. Unlike your Russia delusion, these people actually DID commit crimes, and got caught doing it, violently, on video.