Who are you voting for?

[justjoinedtopost]

I will find it so ironic if the party that made such a show of moral superiority, the party that wanted to lay claim to what it meant to be a patriotic American, may have been unable to keep Putin from taking over their party.

Some of "Clinton Cash" message is true. Some of it is not.
I suppose the same can be said of this. http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/


After the VP debate the other night, his son Eric Trump said they have no assets in Russia. He painted quite a different picture from what his brother Donald Jr. said in 2008.

Trump says he has no investments in Russia. That may be true. My question is, how much has Russia invested in Trump?



Maybe this video is all nonsense. Maybe it is all true. Maybe it is a combination of both.

Spoiler: rambling rant

Is this what the public responds to? Do we want a tabloid, reality-tv show election?


IDGAF if a rich man if a rich man chases pussy with his wealth. I really don't. If he came by his fortune honestly, I hope he enjoys the fuck out of himself. He can bed every prostitute from the East Coast to Eastern Europe, marry the ones he wants to keep, and I will cheer him on.

I DO give a fuck if this man made his fortune siphoning wealth from shareholders, bondholders, suppliers, and contractors. I DO give a fuck if this man is trying to buy a woman's ass with furniture that he screwed a furniture maker over to get.

I remember praying and fasting for this man (when I wasn't handing out anti-abortion material and Chick tracts). His quote "...government is the problem", taken out of context, really spoke to our hearts. I wonder sometimes if it would have made any difference if Reagan had said "...BAD government is the problem" instead. Probly not.

We weren't against the idea of government, mind you. To put it bluntly, we were just upset that government restrained us from keeping n*ggers, f*ggots, and women in their place. We were upset that we weren't the government. I suspect that if our taxes had been going to support our ideology 100%, we would have happily put our money in the plate, instead of having members of our community get arrested for openly defying the IRS. It has been fascinating watching the demented beliefs I grew up with be both championed by the right, and bowed to by the faux left.

Trump has trouble deciding if he is pro-life or pro-choice, depending on the political climate and who he is speaking to. But he's certain there needs to be some punishment. Perhaps one day he will find out one of his grandparents had an illegal abortion, like one of mine did in the 1930's, and it will help him form a logical conclusion about it. Not that it would change the self-serving drivel that comes out of his mouth.

Trump knows when there needs to be punishment. He knows who needs to be stop-and-frisked. He understands we need tough police. He knows which immigrants need to be rounded up, and which ones he needs to bring here to serve his own purposes.

The system is such a mess, I honestly envy the people who are able to forego intellect and embrace Trump as a saviour.

There were a few times decades ago, when my supply dried up, I went here to buy a dimebag.

I didn't just have to worry about getting robbed or shot; I also had to worry about the government, who was keenly interested in stamping out my grossly immoral behaviour. Wrong for me, but ok for my government. Maybe I should have had the foresight to dress up my immorality with a clandestine war or two, and I could have hosted my own tv show. The closest I could hope to come to that was winding up on an episode of COPS.

While I was looking over my shoulder in the projects, Trump was busy profiting at the expense of others. A $10 transaction could have well meant the loss of liberty for me or my dealer for the harm we were causing society, but Trump could afford a different level of justice. A different set of rules.

Trump is right, there needs to be punishment. But not for abortion.
There needs to be punishment (and regulation) for the financial institutions that aided and abetted Trump, and at times even encouraged him.
There needs to be punishment for the crooked assed politicians like Hillary that Trump bought off.
There needs to be punishment for the politicians who sold our government to swine like Trump in backroom deals, then passed it off to the rest of us with lies and misrepresented legislation. The Clintons, the Bushes, all of them. Hell, if Ivanka Trump will loan me her gold spade, I'll get started on digging up Reagan up myself; we can waterboard him until he retracts his trickle-down horse shit.
There needs to be punishment for Trump, because he is the biggest pig in the sty.
There needs to be punishment for the media, left and right, who gloss over their favorite while demonizing thier opponent, and do so in such a pervasive manner that it is impossible to avoid.
There needs to be a punishment (a swift kick in the ass preferably) for stupid people who buy into conspiracy theories, and embrace bigotry cloaked in statistics. I say this as a stupid person who has done this a number of times.

Unfortunately, none of this can be brought about by dutifully showing up at the ballot box for a presidential election, convinced you have backed the right horse. The bookies are always going to win. So I imagine things will continue to circle the bowl.

The good news is, we appear to be drawing closer to the point where a collapse/revolution is unavoidable. Hopefully it will be nonviolent. Hopefully it will be a purging of the corruption and the crazy ideas in our legislation, and not a complete takeover by them.

Then there is this bit of good news.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mmutes-sentences-214-criminals-promises-come/
I am not an Obama fan. I had hoped he would live up to his speeches early on, but was totally unsurprised by the way things turned out. Guess I was already a cynic by then. But this gives me hope that things may be changing.

Reading about these commutations makes me wonder what it might have looked like if Obama had served 8 years without having to deal with an element that was busy with wild-eyed rants about death panels and birth certificates. An element that didn't cheer for war, just so they could nitpick about the prosecution of war, just so we would forget what an abysmal job they did at prosecuting war. An element that focused on improving the government, instead of discrediting it. 8 years without having to deal with a corporate element that had our well being by the purse strings.

 

[Osmia]

Howard Dean has a good opinion column in the NYT advocating ranked choice voting. It's already in use in some jurisdictions, though not for US Presidential elections. The point is that it's a matter for local and state governments to decide, so it's not as difficult to do as it would be at the national or constitutional level.

The big advantages are that (1) it can make it easier for third parties to get established, and (2) it eliminates the concept of "spoilers" and "throwing your vote away" so you can vote for your actual preferred candidate and a fallback second choice.

 

[Deleted member 31926]

The big advantages are that (1) it can make it easier for third parties to get established, and (2) it eliminates the concept of "spoilers" and "throwing your vote away" so you can vote for your actual preferred candidate and a fallback second choice.

This idea periodically resurfaces here in Canada as well, yet it never gets political traction for exactly the reason you give: It favours third parties at the expense of incumbents. The party currently in power has no incentive to change the way elections are run, since it clearly is working for them; while the other parties, who would benefit from change, have no power to effect it.

Not saying it isn't a good idea or it wouldn't benefit voters, just that it represents an interesting sort of political paradox.

 

[Gen]

This idea periodically resurfaces here in Canada as well, yet it never gets political traction for exactly the reason you give: It favours third parties at the expense of incumbents. The party currently in power has no incentive to change the way elections are run, since it clearly is working for them; while the other parties, who would benefit from change, have no power to effect it.

Not saying it isn't a good idea or it wouldn't benefit voters, just that it represents an interesting sort of political paradox.

I'm curious to see if/what Trudeau will do, since he made voter reform such a big part of his platform. But "voter reform" is a broad term so there's lots of wiggle room there. Personally that was a major issue for me and I will be super mad if he doesn't address it, but I'm not a Liberal voter anyway, so. Ranked votes would be SO interesting here since we have three major parties.

 

[Crumb]

I'm curious to see if/what Trudeau will do, since he made voter reform such a big part of his platform. But "voter reform" is a broad term so there's lots of wiggle room there. Personally that was a major issue for me and I will be super mad if he doesn't address it, but I'm not a Liberal voter anyway, so. Ranked votes would be SO interesting here since we have three major parties.

He's already started looking into dumping First Past the Post (which I hate as a BC'er, because my vote, DOES NOT count)
https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/4201

 

[Mila_]

I'm confused as to why you don't list all of the questionable practices of trump in your last statement as well along side? "massive ego" is the most damning thing you could say? /quote

Again, as I've said before, the argument of crazy vs. corrupt makes no sense because trump is also VERY corrupt and has a laundry list of lawsuits and very very shitty shady business dealings... some even teetering on treason. A terrible record of inhumane treatment, brutal rape accusations and blatant shitting on the working class for personal gain. These things happened or have been accused of happening and nothing any Trump supporter says can take that reality away.

Let's be honest here. Our choice is a shitty corrupt businessman reality TV star and a shitty corrupt life long politician. Both have done some good things in their lives and both have done some really really really bad things in their lives, we now have to choose which giant piece of dishonest human garbage can best represent this country on a global scale and at least not make Americans look worse than they already do

To me that choice is clear but I make that choice based on the reality we face not the fictitious world of saviors and gods.

If Trump wasn't such a piece of shit Hillary wouldn't have a chance, and vice versa. What a joke.

Because I don't place much importance on words.

Every single attack the media unleashes on Trump:

>TRUMP SAID A MEAN THING IN 2005!

>BOMBSHELL: unreliable source tells us a horrible rumor about Trump

>Trump did something with his own money and we don't agree with it!

Words.

Meanwhile... with Hillary... She might choose her words more carefully in public, but it is her acts that are heinous.

Every act Hillary commits is paid for by you. You fund her "nice" gestures, and you fund her awful shit. She is part of the parasitic ruling class and as such, produces nothing of value. You are financing her shit behavior with your money. Whatever mean things Trump has said or allegedly done, at least he paid for them out of his own pocket.

 

[Gen]

He's already started looking into dumping First Past the Post (which I hate as a BC'er, because my vote, DOES NOT count)
https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/4201

Yeah I remember watching the news on Election Day and they were calling it a Trudeau while people were still in line to vote. Super demoralizing and yeah, hard to feel motivated to care if your vote is already rendered pointless before it's cast. I think it would help voter apathy if they felt their vote made a difference.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Because I don't place much importance on words.

Every single attack the media unleashes on Trump:

>TRUMP SAID A MEAN THING IN 2005!

>BOMBSHELL: unreliable source tells us a horrible rumor about Trump

>Trump did something with his own money and we don't agree with it!

Words.

Meanwhile... with Hillary... She might choose her words more carefully in public, but it is her acts that are heinous.

Every act Hillary commits is paid for by you. You fund her "nice" gestures, and you fund her awful shit. She is part of the parasitic ruling class and as such, produces nothing of value. You are financing her shit behavior with your money. Whatever mean things Trump has said or allegedly done, at least he paid for them out of his own pocket.

Or the Trump foundations pocket illegally... but whatever right. As long as it doesn't say "Clinton" it's ok with you?

I'm not trying to get you to like Clinton, but the inability of either side to apply the same standards to each candidate is embarrassing to human intelligence.
It's stupid to talk about un-proven accusations until it applies to the candidate you don't like, right? Clinton is guilty of every crime imaginable "allegedly" for months with all the conspiracy theories being a main talking point of the right but to call Trump out for "alleged" crimes (most of peoples complaints of trump are things on video, in recordings and proven facts and legal record BTW) is suddenly frowned upon and not worthy of merit?

humans are hypocrites. Pick and choose it's what we do.

The point of my post was to call out the biased picture painting you were doing. We all hate biased media but are unable to see how we ourselves contribute to it.

 

[Mila_]

Or the Trump foundations pocket illegally... but whatever right. As long as it doesn't say "Clinton" it's ok with you?

I'm not trying to get you to like Clinton, but the inability of either side to apply the same standards to each candidate is embarrassing to human intelligence.
It's stupid to talk about un-proven accusations until it applies to the candidate you don't like, right? Clinton is guilty of every crime imaginable "allegedly" for months with all the conspiracy theories being a main talking point of the right but to call Trump out for "alleged" crimes (most of peoples complaints of trump are things on video, in recordings and proven facts and legal record BTW) is suddenly frowned upon and not worthy of merit?

humans are hypocrites. Pick and choose it's what we do.

The point of my post was to call out the biased picture painting you were doing. We all hate biased media but are unable to see how we ourselves contribute to it.

Not at all. If you take out of the picture every rumor on both sides and stick to things with substance (court charges that were found guilty, video and documents, etc) you are left with two very different pictures.

There are only 3 Trump scandals that are not based solely on "HE SAID MEAN WORDS", involve actions, and have proof to back up:

1) The only accusation with actual substance against Trump in my opinion was the discrimination case he and his father were charged with in 1973. He and his father instructed property managers to tell blacks that there were no available apartments or asked them for more requisites in order to lease units. This was probably done because black people drive market value down.

2) Trump U where he was using the name "university" without a license to do so. I personally believe this case is being pushed in 2016 for political purposes and while the technicality of the name was corrected, labeling the university a "huge ripoff" or even "a scam" because "it was more interested in selling it's students the most expensive courses instead of helping them succeed" which is what they wrote in The New Yorker about it is what every private education institution is guilty of doing. If at this point you believe Universities are about anything other than shaking the shekels off your pockets you are naive. Trump U was a for-profit course on real estate.

3) Buying a dump of a building in Central Park with the intention of building something great in the lot, and trying to make the residents leave by cutting electricity, heat, and then eventually attempting to let homeless people live in the apartments that were vacant. He eventually had to let them be, he still owns the building and his son Eric owns the penthouse.

These were all things that you do to maximize the profit of your company. Every businessman worth his salt will take advantage of every opportunity to minimize loss and maximize profit. Sometimes they also take risks that blow up in their faces like buying that building in Central Park. Whatever he did that was questionable was done with his own money, he didn't use tax payer money to fund any of his actions. He has also settled or paid for all three events above.

On the part of Hillary Clinton the picture is much more dire. Like I did with Trump I will stick only to actions that you can prove with either facts, charges, videos, pictures, etc and I will skip testimonies, conspiracies, etc.

1) Hillary Clinton got a man that raped and beat up a 12 year old girl a free "get out of jail" card by spoiling the evidence which happened to be the girl's panties soaked in her blood and semen from the accused. Hillary then laughed about it saying that she knew the guy was guilty and the fact that he passed a polygraph destroyed her faith in the test.

2) Hillary got 7 people from the White House travel office fired and replaced them with Clinton's associates. They were made to rehire the old staff by an investigation and it was found out that Hillary lied about her involvement in the firings.

3) They took with them almost $200k worth of artworks, flatware, furniture, china and rugs from the White House when they left and had to return $114k when they were found out.

4) They funneled fraudulent money through the Whitewater property they co-owned with James Mcdougal. Hillary made Vince Foster file the late taxes for the property two weeks before he committed suicide and the files disappeared from his office after.

5) They had someone from her White House staff access the FBI files of all their enemies including prominent members of the Republican party. Hillary Clinton was the person who requested this move and she called it a "completely honest bureaucratic snafu"

6) They used the IRS as a political weapon, they ordered the IRS to audit their black list of individuals and organizations that were adversarial towards them including Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.

7) She accepted huge sums from foreign countries through the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. Notably Chinese and Saudi donors.

8) She conducted all her email exchanges unlawfully through her own server putting very sensitive information and risk. She then wiped the server when the investigation was opened. Funny enough the staffer she ordered to wipe the server asked how to go about it on Reddit.

9) She ignored the Lybia embassy emergency messages asking for backup, she then lied about it to the American people telling them that she didn't know about it. It was proven that she did later. She also lied about the reason and the nature of the attack, blaming it on a Youtube video.

These are only the factual attacks on Hillary. I ignored the rumors, the scandals in which Bill participated on his own, and anything without proof.

This is worrisome because while you may or may not agree with Trump's ethics, everything he did was as a private citizen. In the case of Hillary Clinton, she abused the power of public office to attack adversaries, push her agenda, commit fraud, racketeering, placed America's intelligence secrets in danger, lied to the People, and did other countries bidding in exchange for money. You see how this is a bigger problem? She is abusing the power of government to fuck over the citizens that pay her salary with their taxes.

 

[Mila_]

I completely forgot to mention the Pay for Play business between Hillary and the DNC where they basically auctioned off embassies to the highest bidder. That scandal came out with the first wikileaks dump a few months ago along with the conspiracy between her and the DNC leadership to cheat Bernie out of the primaries. Because of the 2 scandals the heads of the DNC leadership rolled, and Hillary came out unscathed, as usual. Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the former chairman of the DNC didn't even have time to join the ranks of the unemployed because Hillary hired her as campaign manager even before her "resignation" from the DNC leadership was made effective

 

[JoleneBrody]

"HE SAID MEAN WORDS"

Here in lies many of the opposing feelings I'm sure from either side, including a very large number of conservatives now.

You're opinion and my opinion on this differ greatly.

 

[Mila_]

Here in lies many of the opposing feelings I'm sure from either side, including a very large number of conservatives now.

You're opinion and my opinion on this differ greatly.

If you are choosing a presidential candidate based on word choices alone, perhaps take a look at some of Hillary's.

1) She called black youth "super-predators" that had to be "brought to heel"
2) She called all her husbands victims and lovers "bimbos"
3) She referred to latino voters as "Taco Bowl Outreach"
4) She called someone "that fucking jew bastard"
5) She told her Arkansas bodyguards: "Fuck off! It’s enough that I have to see you fuck-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too! Just do your godamn job and keep your mouth shut."

So.. do MEAN WORDS! only matter when they come out of Trump's mouth?

 

[JoleneBrody]

If you are choosing a presidential candidate based on word choices alone, perhaps take a look at some of Hillary's.

1) She called black youth "super-predators" that had to be "brought to heel"
2) She called all her husbands victims and lovers "bimbos"
3) She referred to latino voters as "Taco Bowl Outreach"
4) She called someone "that fucking jew bastard"
5) She told her Arkansas bodyguards: "Fuck off! It’s enough that I have to see you fuck-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too! Just do your godamn job and keep your mouth shut."

So.. do MEAN WORDS! only matter when they come out of Trump's mouth?

I haven't been talking about Hillary, I've been addressing Trump and his issues. If the only only defense of Trumps actions or words is "but Hillary" or "but Bill" it's the argument of a 5 year old.
I'm not a Hillary supporter or lover by far, but I am anti Trump firmly. The assumption that speaking out against Trump=speaking for Hillary is pretty frustrating.

And even you didn't get the "taco bowl outreach" (actually taco bowl engagement) comment made the day after Trumps taco bowl "I love hispanics" tweet? seriously? You may be a Trump supporter but you're not stupid. Tongue in cheek sarcastic humor is kind of like, your thing.

Anyway she did not even say that. It was an email within the DNC between staff of the committee, not Hillary herself. Trump made a reach to Hispanics by engaging them with a taco bowl on Cinco De Mayo on twitter, the day after that happened the DNC were planning to "mop up" that engagement.

Here is a link to the email in question from the wiki leaks. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5492

 

[AudriTwo]

Watching that list grow of Republicans no longer endorsing Trump..

 

[JoleneBrody]

1) Hillary Clinton got a man that raped and beat up a 12 year old girl a free "get out of jail" card by spoiling the evidence which happened to be the girl's panties soaked in her blood and semen from the accused. Hillary then laughed about it saying that she knew the guy was guilty and the fact that he passed a polygraph destroyed her faith in the test.

For anyone who's interested in the facts and truth behind this, here.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

 

[Shaun__]

For anyone who's interested in the facts and truth behind this, here.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Speaking of child rapists, link.

 

[AudriTwo]

A Week in Trump...and the New Dawn...

 

[Bocefish]

For anyone who's interested in the facts and truth

LMFAO!!!

By all means, vote for HRC if she's your facts and truth gal, go Hillary go...

If nothing else, Trump has helped reveal what a complete farce our current political system is and how dire we need a major overhaul.

.02

 

[Gen]

LMFAO!!!

By all means, vote for HRC if she's your facts and truth gal, go Hillary go...

If nothing else, Trump has helped reveal what a complete farce our current political system is and how dire we need a major overhaul.

.02

Can I ask what in the link you disagree with/feel is untrue? Or are you just speaking about Hillary in general?

 

[Bocefish]

Can I ask what in the link you disagree with/feel is untrue? Or are you just speaking about Hillary in general?

Of course, you can ask what in the link I disagree with... do you think you need some sort of special permission?

First of all, you pansy mother fuckers that want to argue about what is in a link have zero clues about reality.

You want to know how I feel about HRC?

Ask the people she told when their flag-draped caskets arrived from Benghazi that it was all about a video.

 

[Gen]

Of course, you can ask what in the link I disagree with... do you think you need some sort of special permission?

First of all, you pansy mother fuckers that want to argue about what is in a link have zero clues about reality.

You want to know how I feel about HRC?

Ask the people she told when their flag-draped caskets arrived from Benghazi that it was all about a video.

Alright then, good discussion!

 

[Bocefish]

And stay off my lawn Goddammit!!!

 

[Bocefish]

OK, the lawn thing was a joke.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I corrected a Hillary supporter when she spouted misinformation about Trump on Facebook earlier today (stating that he was convicted of raping his ex-wife which is not true, he was vaguely accused). Spreading misinformation does not in any way help anybody from any side, it just further contributes to the shit show that led us here in the first place.

You're hatred of Hillary will not change my opinion of Trump, but I understand why you feel so passionately about her.

 

[Mila_]

For anyone who's interested in the facts and truth behind this, here.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

I corrected a Hillary supporter when she spouted misinformation about Trump on Facebook earlier today (stating that he was convicted of raping his ex-wife which is not true, he was vaguely accused). Spreading misinformation does not in any way help anybody from any side, it just further contributes to the shit show that led us here in the first place.

You're hatred of Hillary will not change my opinion of Trump, but I understand why you feel so passionately about her.

Snopes? Really? Going to Snopes expecting to find the truth is like going to Politico.com for news reporting. The Snopes "fact checking" on this is a joke:



This is how you "fact check" something: you go to the source. The child rapist case was brought to the limelight by the leak of the Hillary Tapes. Those were interviews with both Hillary and Bill Clinton that were recorded in the span of several years during the 80s in Arkansas. They were intended to be for an Esquire magazine profile but it never got published. Those recordings are hours long, but in them Hillary speaks frankly and in detail about the rapist case, which was one of the most significant of her career. She does laugh about the outcome, and she does explain that she got that man a 1 year sentence because of a technicality with the evidence. You can hear her laugh about it and explain what I said above:



Watch the first part of that video from 0:13 on she talks about the case. She laughs several times. First when she says that the fact that her client passed the polygraph test destroyed her faith in those tests (she knew the guy was guilty) and then when she explains how the lab she hired destroyed the evidence so she got him out on a technicality. She also attacked the girl's reputation even though she was 12. This isn't discussed in the Hillary Tapes, but there are documents like affidavits and news articles from that time

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.

Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

But the interview reveals that an error by the prosecution would render unnecessary these attacks on the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim.

If she wrote that she hated the case in a book she published years later (which is Snopes "fact checking") it doesn't matter. Like Hillary said in one of the emails leaked yesterday by Wikileaks: "you have to have a private position and a public position."

Hillary Clinton got a 41 year old man who raped and beat up a 12 year old girl with strong evidence a 1 year sentence by ruining the reputation of the 12 year old victim, and later by a technicality with the evidence which was bloody underwear. Hillary knew he was guilty and she did free this man because if it had not been for fucking up the evidence he would have faced a long time in jail for the crimes he committed against that girl.

 

[Bocefish]

You're hatred of Hillary will not change my opinion of Trump, but I understand why you feel so passionately about her.

My good friend Robert De Niro summed up how I feel about Trump.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

If she wrote that she hated the case in a book she published years later (which is Snopes "fact checking") it doesn't matter. Like Hillary said in one of the emails leaked yesterday by Wikileaks: "you have to have a private position and a public position."

Hillary Clinton got a 41 year old man who raped and beat up a 12 year old girl with strong evidence a 1 year sentence by ruining the reputation of the 12-year-old victim, and later by a technicality with the evidence which was bloody underwear. Hillary knew he was guilty and she did free this man because if it had not been for fucking up the evidence he would have faced a long time in jail for the crimes he committed against that girl.

I've listened to that audio twice now, (either you or somebody else posted it before) and the only thing I hear is a lawyer doing her job. A defense lawyers job is to vigorously protect their client period.
It doesn't matter if they believe the defendant is guilty or not. (Criminal defense lawyers quickly learn that a truly innocent client is rare.) In this case, not only did her client say he was innocent but the polygraph suggested that he might actually be innocent.

6th amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I so tired of people saying "such and such got off on a technicality". That's bullshit. Her client got off because the prosecution didn't have a strong evidence. (Politically it's bad for a DA office to let a man accused of raping a 12-year-old go free after a few months). The crime lab/prosecution threw away the blood evidence linking her client to the crime, that's not a technicality. Crime labs make mistakes in testing, often the results aren't as black and white as the prosecution makes them out, and sometimes they make stuff up and plant evidence. The 6th amendment exist so that defense has a chance to challenge the state's cases. When the "lost" the piece of his underwear, they deprived her client of his constitutional rights. Our justice system is designed to let 100 guilty men go free rather than punish an innocent man, and even then we screw up and send innocent men to jail.
If you want condemn Hillary because she made some inappropriate laughs fine.
I loathe Hillary and I believe she has done many things that I find at best ethically questionable and worse possibly criminal. This isn't one of those situations.

 

[Mila_]

I've listened to that audio twice now, (either you or somebody else posted it before) and the only thing I hear is a lawyer doing her job. A defense lawyers job is to vigorously protect their client period.
It doesn't matter if they believe the defendant is guilty or not. (Criminal defense lawyers quickly learn that a truly innocent client is rare.) In this case, not only did her client say he was innocent but the polygraph suggested that he might actually be innocent.



I so tired of people saying "such and such got off on a technicality". That's bullshit. Her client got off because the prosecution didn't have a strong evidence. (Politically it's bad for a DA office to let a man accused of raping a 12-year-old go free after a few months). The crime lab/prosecution threw away the blood evidence linking her client to the crime, that's not a technicality. Crime labs make mistakes in testing, often the results aren't as black and white as the prosecution makes them out, and sometimes they make stuff up and plant evidence. The 6th amendment exist so that defense has a chance to challenge the state's cases. When the "lost" the piece of his underwear, they deprived her client of his constitutional rights. Our justice system is designed to let 100 guilty men go free rather than punish an innocent man, and even then we screw up and send innocent men to jail.
If you want condemn Hillary because she made some inappropriate laughs fine.
I loathe Hillary and I believe she has done many things that I find at best ethically questionable and worse possibly criminal. This isn't one of those situations.

There are many ways to be a lawyer. The cases you choose paint a picture of what your ethic code is like. Some lawyers care about certain causes and would never represent a client they consider is violating them. Some even refuse cases that would be very profitable because it violates their moral code. So imagine that Al Gore was the candidate and suddenly we all learn that he defended a corporation that dumped radioactive material into a town's lake and as a result there have been countless cancer cases, genetic abnormalities, and envirommental tragedies. Imagine the prosecution had strong evidence. Now imagine Al Gore defends them even though he believes they were guilty, gets them off on a ridiculous low penalty, all based on a technicality with the evidence chain of supervision or mishandling. Now imagine we all hear him laugh about this on tape, and he is running for the Green Party.

That is what is wrong with this case. Hillary who supposedly stands for women and is a champion to feminists, who is running on a gender identity politics platform for the democratic party chose a client who raped a 12 year old girl, beat her, she was convinced that he was guilty and continued to represent him, then blamed the girl, blamed the victim in front of a jury during the trial and laughed about it all later.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Spoiler: Courtesy Spoiler

I am not going to address @Kitsune directly here, as the content quality of her last few posts has slipped. She has decided to withhold that marvelous intellect of her's in favor of a cut and paste smear rampage. Disappointing. I certainly can't encourage that sort of thing, but it is understandable, I suppose; this has got to be a tough week to be a Trump groupie.

While I can't allow myself to respond to her, for the benefit of posterity, I would like to address some of the more grotesque distortions she inscribed upon the hallowed walls of this forum.

1) Hillary Clinton got a man that raped and beat up a 12 year old girl a free "get out of jail" card by spoiling the evidence which happened to be the girl's panties soaked in her blood and semen from the accused. Hillary then laughed about it saying that she knew the guy was guilty and the fact that he passed a polygraph destroyed her faith in the test.

Did she? How did she spoil the evidence? By demanding to see it? Should defense attorneys be allowed to demand to see what evidence the government has against their clients? Is a vote for Trump a vote for the belief that the government should be free to determine guilt without question?

Did Clinton get a pair of the girl's panties "soaked in blood and semen"? Or did she receive a pair of the defendant's underwear from the state with a hole in them, a pair that a forensic expert said did not have enough material to test? If @Kitsune is wrong about a detail like this, is her retrospective critique of this case even fit to wipe your ass with? Or does the end (stoking the fires of partisan outrage) justify the means (spreading falsehoods)?

Did Hillary get this man a "get out of jail" card? Or did she get him a plea deal, followed by the judge suspending his sentence? Of course, you could blame the prosecutor's and the judge's actions on pressure from Clinton; but wouldn't this require you to be naive enough to believe that the Clinton of 1975 wielded the same political power and influence she does today?

Did Clinton know he was guilty? Did she suspect it from the start? Did she know afterwards, when the defendendant had already pled guilty? Did she learn sometime throughout the course of the trial?

Did Hillary laugh about rape? Did she laugh about the judicial process? Did she say this was a terrible case?

If we are going to tear down President Hillary Clinton over her actions as a defense attorney, should we just go ahead and remove all protections for those accused of rape?

3) They took with them almost $200k worth of artworks, flatware, furniture, china and rugs from the White House when they left and had to return $114k when they were found out.

Isn't this just a little...idk, ? Isn't this just the sort of petty nonsense that clouds the waters by associating serious issues like Travelgate/Whitewater/Clinton Foundation conflict of interests/the email mess, etc... with absurd trivialities?

9) She ignored the Lybia embassy emergency messages asking for backup, she then lied about it to the American people telling them that she didn't know about it. It was proven that she did later. She also lied about the reason and the nature of the attack, blaming it on a Youtube video.

BENGHAZI!! BENGHAZI!! BENGHAZI!! benghazi?? BENGHAZI!!!!

This is worrisome because while you may or may not agree with Trump's ethics, everything he did was as a private citizen. In the case of Hillary Clinton, she abused the power of public office to attack adversaries, push her agenda, commit fraud, racketeering, placed America's intelligence secrets in danger, lied to the People, and did other countries bidding in exchange for money. You see how this is a bigger problem? She is abusing the power of government to fuck over the citizens that pay her salary with their taxes.

While I can agree with legitimate criticism of Hillary, I draw the line at claiming that as a Trump qualification. Hillary is not a bigger problem than Trump just because she had to go through elections, or just because some of her service was to the public, while virtually all of Trump's service was to his ego and his mysterious net worth. The Trumps and the Clintons of this world rule hand in hand, no matter who is in office at a given moment. Trump has even openly bragged about this himself. You cannot separate elected politicians who peddle their influence from wealthy men like Trump who buy it.

This is an interesting perspective though. To fully understand it, it must be understood that @Kitsune, unless I am mistaken (and please forgive me if I am wrong), has claimed she is not American. I don't feel like going back and looking through her post history, but I think she said she was from Chile, or Sandinista, or Hindu, or some other communist country. So the astute reader must take context into account when considering what she means when she uses the term "the People", and they must also take it into account when they consider her blind, unwavering support for an authoritarian totalitarian figure like Trump. It's good to try and understand where people are coming from when they speak.

We should not automatically discount @Kitsune perspective based on her nationality; indeed, I have spent a fair amount of time reading foreign opinions of this US election, and it has been enlightening to say the least. However, I do think it behooves us to consider whether or not @Kitsune exhibits a mindset Americans should adopt. I believe we can embrace cultural diversity without wholeheartedly accepting philosophies which may lead us to resemble nations we really don't want to emulate...

LMFAO!!!

By all means, vote for HRC if she's your facts and truth gal, go Hillary go...

If nothing else, Trump has helped reveal what a complete farce our current political system is and how dire we need a major overhaul.

.02

AMEN!!!!! PREACH IT BROTHER!!!!

The question this election is not "Hillary, or Trump?"
The question this election is a slackjawed, incredulous "Hillary and Trump!?"

The United States of America is corrupt. Obama, Hillary, Bill, W, GHW, Reagan, and all the little lifetime-beauracrat minions who serve beneath them...the governors, the state governments...it is a pay to play, and get paid if you play society. We don't even try to hide it anymore. If you are able to somehow get in without being corrupt, it is impossible to remain that way.

Downplay or cheer on the corruption of one side, cry bloody murder when the opposing side does it. It has to be this way. We must remain divided, or our Clintons and Trumps will lose power. Then they won't be able to hobnob with other wealthy pedophiles on sex islands.

A Trump administration might be just the thing to unite America against the system. Or, it might simply be the destabilizing event that triggers our downfall. Trump might be our Batista. He might be our Castro. He might be our Putin. But whatever he is, I have faith that he can strip away many of the illusions our government has promoted for so long now.

Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Democracy. Patriotic. These words have had their definitions stolen and perverted; their meaning is no longer clear. These are empty buzzwords in America.

I call on all decent Americans to understand the importance of this vote, and to get out and do their civic duty come election day. If you have never voted before, this may be the last chance you ever have.
I ask them to consider voting for Donald Trump, as a harsh punishment to a deplorable system that refused to police itself.
I ask them to reject Hillary Clinton, on the grounds that the status quo has become morally indefensible.
I ask them, if a vote of conscience for a third party is out of the question, to write in a protest vote (Teddy Roosevelt might be a good option).

And if you are reading these undeletable words in the year 3016, trying to ascertain why the great American Empire fell, take it from somebody who was there: Too many Twinkies, too many Gilligan's Island reruns, too much MTV, followed by too much internet.

This is how you "fact check" something: you go to the source. The child rapist case was brought to the limelight by the leak of the Hillary Tapes. Those were interviews with both Hillary and Bill Clinton that were recorded in the span of several years during the 80s in Arkansas. They were intended to be for an Esquire magazine profile but it never got published. Those recordings are hours long, but in them Hillary speaks frankly and in detail about the rapist case, which was one of the most significant of her career. She does laugh about the outcome, and she does explain that she got that man a 1 year sentence because of a technicality with the evidence. You can hear her laugh about it and explain what I said above:

Watch the first part of that video from 0:13 on she talks about the case. She laughs several times. First when she says that the fact that her client passed the polygraph test destroyed her faith in those tests (she knew the guy was guilty) and then when she explains how the lab she hired destroyed the evidence so she got him out on a technicality. She also attacked the girl's reputation even though she was 12. This isn't discussed in the Hillary Tapes, but there are documents like affidavits and news articles from that time



If she wrote that she hated the case in a book she published years later (which is Snopes "fact checking") it doesn't matter. Like Hillary said in one of the emails leaked yesterday by Wikileaks: "you have to have a private position and a public position."

Hillary Clinton got a 41 year old man who raped and beat up a 12 year old girl with strong evidence a 1 year sentence by ruining the reputation of the 12 year old victim, and later by a technicality with the evidence which was bloody underwear. Hillary knew he was guilty and she did free this man because if it had not been for fucking up the evidence he would have faced a long time in jail for the crimes he committed against that girl.

"Facts"? "Sources"?

Kitsune: "She laughs several times."
Hmm: Why do I give a shit about that? I laughed and cracked cancer jokes at my own mothers funeral. I know some good cops who laughed their asses off after they arrived at an accident scene where a man was decapitated and they took some photos of him posed holding his own head in his lap. You say Hillary laughed in an interview? Oh my!

Kitsune: "she does explain that she got that man a 1 year sentence because of a technicality with the evidence."
Hmm: Isn't that a defense attorney's job, to question the evidence? Did she really get him a 1 year sentence? Or did she get him a plea bargain of five years, four of which the judge suspended?

On page 40 of this document, is the circuit judge's signature Hillary Rodham's? If I told you the judge in that case was dead, but I contacted him with my Ouija board and he confirmed that Hillary was not only responsible for the defendants complete exoneration, but also that Hillary personally oversaw and directed the rape itself, would you believe me? Does that count as a "fact" from a "source"?

Kitsune: "First when she says that the fact that her client passed the polygraph test destroyed her faith in those tests (she knew the guy was guilty) "
Hmm: Are you saying she knew the guy was guilty before the polygraph? The minute the polygraph results came back? Or are you saying she knew the guy was guilty years later when she gave this interview? How did Hillary know he was guilty?

Kitsune: "she explains how the lab she hired destroyed the evidence so she got him out on a technicality."
Hmm: Are you saying Hillary hired the state crime lab that destroyed the evidence? Doesn't Hillary say "What was sad about it...", referring to the state lab mishandling the evidence? Isn't it true that what the state turned over to her had been destroyed before she took it to an independent examiner? Or should we ignore this fact in favor of a Trumpian "fact"?

Kitsune: "she did free this man because if it had not been for fucking up the evidence he would have faced a long time in jail for the crimes he committed against that girl."
Hmm: Is blaming Hillary for a prosecution crime lab destroying evidence before a trial simply the result of Kitsune's lack of attention to detail? Or is it a deliberate attempt to mislead?

There are many ways to be a lawyer. The cases you choose paint a picture of what your ethic code is like. Some lawyers care about certain causes and would never represent a client they consider is violating them. Some even refuse cases that would be very profitable because it violates their moral code. So imagine that Al Gore was the candidate and suddenly we all learn that he defended a corporation that dumped radioactive material into a town's lake and as a result there have been countless cancer cases, genetic abnormalities, and envirommental tragedies. Imagine the prosecution had strong evidence. Now imagine Al Gore defends them even though he believes they were guilty, gets them off on a ridiculous low penalty, all based on a technicality with the evidence chain of supervision or mishandling. Now imagine we all hear him laugh about this on tape, and he is running for the Green Party.

That is what is wrong with this case. Hillary who supposedly stands for women and is a champion to feminists, who is running on a gender identity politics platform for the democratic party chose a client who raped a 12 year old girl, beat her, she was convinced that he was guilty and continued to represent him, then blamed the girl, blamed the victim in front of a jury during the trial and laughed about it all later.

Think I need link to your "source"...

 

[AudriTwo]

This is my favorite thread.