You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Yes, a "duh" for sure. But since we are talking about the moral character of Trump and Hillary it should matter. I mean, if we are going after Trump for being sexually promiscuous the fact that Hillary is an evil, corrupt creature seems relevant too.
Re: US Politics Thread
TheMole wrote:polluxlm wrote:The reason why I say I'm surprised at all the fuzz about Trump is that stuff like this has been around for a long time:
So if nobody cares that Hillary got a child molester off and bragged and laughed about it, I fail to see why Trump making a lewd joke is such a big deal. Of course we know why there is such a disparity from the media, but nobody wants to talk about that either. Trump says mean things and knows how to do tax deductions, focus on that.
For those who still don't get it, the supporters of Trump are those who see how ridiculous this is. How screwed up such a system has become and how it desperately needs change. If it's the guy from the Apprentice with funny hair, so be it. They're not leaving us a lot of options.
I'd recommend everyone actually watch that video, 'cause Pollux's description above is disingenuous and in no way supported by the actual video. Yes, she's telling an anecdote of how she, in her time as a defense lawyer, once was able to drastically reduce someone's sentence based on a technicality. That was her friggin' job, her legal obligation as a defense attorney (and I'd say moral obligation as well). All she's doing in this video talking about how good she was at it, sharing an interesting anecdote that demonstrates how the system sometimes doesn't work, that is all...
Nothing to see here, as usual, but at the very least watch the video and see for yourself...
So yeah, Hillary does her job and does it well, doesn't commit any actual crimes: she supports child molestation. Trump talks about grabbing women in the pussy, in line with all of his other misogynistic exploits: he's just joking. And you have the gall to say the media is skewing the story... that's just insane.
There is nothing disingenuous whatsoever about stating she was laughing and bragging about it. That's what she's doing on that tape. There's a difference between doing your job and not caring about helping a child rapist out on the streets again. It was a good case for her, what does she care about the victim.
CLAIM: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.
MOSTLY FALSE
WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.
WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.
“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Mahlon Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.
Gibson said the same thing during a 2014 CNN interview about the case, adding that Hillary had attempted unsuccessfully to get the judge to remove her from the case:
Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.
“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.
According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.
As for the claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. It's also largely irrelevant given that under Hillary Clinton's handling of the case, the defendant pled guilty rather than going to trial and asserting his innocence.
As Newsday observed, the case was a "hopelessly convoluted" one in which the facts were far from straightforward and in which another person (a juvenile) was also charged.
The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as "terrible." She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology):
Finally, Hillary didn't "free" the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, of which the judge suspended four years and allowed two months credit of time already served towards the remaining year:
Additionally, according to Newsday it was the complainant and her mother who pushed the state to make a quick plea deal rather than have the former go through the ordeal of a court trial, with the mother actively interfering in the investigation to bring about that result.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-f … -about-it/
_____________________
So, in short, Hillary was helping poor people get legal defense for free, and she was assigned this case. The judge and prosecuting attorney worked out the details of the release, not Hillary.
Re: US Politics Thread
Right, Hillary helping the poor out of the goodness of her heart. I'm sure even democrats will struggle to believe that.
When you listen to the tape you can hear Hillary did a hell of a job to get the evidence thrown out, forcing a plea deal. If that's not getting your client off I don't know what is. No, obviously she is not in charge of sentencing, but she did her job and he walked for time already served. And now she remembers the case fondly because it helped her career.
Not a scandal in my book. I expect that is how most lawyers talk in private. But since macho talk in private is now suddenly a big deal to determine the fitness of a Presidential candidate I figured it was time to bring it up.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:Lol at those that think medical reasons are why many abortions happen.... those are a very VERY small percentage. Most abortions are from people that like to fuck but don't want the inconvenience of kids. I get it. But they have condoms and birth control and ovulation scheldules. To get pregnant you are either trying, stupid, or extremely unlucky like a condom breaks and your other medicine negated the affects of the birth control.
Dude, where do you get these numbers? Late term abortions only make up 1% of the total number of abortions in the US. The argument that was being made is that of those late term abortions, all of them are for medical reasons. The VAST majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, and yes a good number of those are because the parents aren't ready for (or simply don't want) kids. What's wrong with that? There seems to be general consensus in the medical community that a fetus doesn't show the necessary brain activity to be considered sentient in the first trimester. Hell, even the Christian church used to adhere to a theory that a fetus is only endowed with a soul around week 16/17 (it has since been abandoned, but still, goes to show how flexible their belief system is...).
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of first trimester abortions are because of a problem with other firms of birth control. It just doesn't make a lick of sense to think that a couple would fuck to their heart's content counting on the fact that they can get an abortion later on instead of just relying on any of the many other contraceptives available. Abortion is almost always used as the back-up to another method of contraception.
But frankly, all of that shouldn't matter. It is their fucking choice, just stop trying to control what someone else can do with their own body when it doesn't affect you in the slightest bit.
I was talking about abortions in general not late term.
Late term is still legal in 9 states in the United States... some allow you to abort full term but most up to 36 weeks... that seems barbaric.
A true libertarian would argue that the unborn child has rights and freedoms... you act as if these women are removing their appendix.... This is not like getting fake tits or anything else dealing with body parts they were born with... This is about killing an unborn living child. I don't know how I feel about every specific case of abortion. I know a large portion of people that get them are kids that are scared and can't really even take care of themselves let alone a child. I get it. But at some point you owe an obligation to that kid inside you to find them a good home by putting them up for adoption. There are some people that done even realize they are pregnant until the 2nd trimester because they are idiots. Also like others have said, where are the rights of the father????
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Transcripts released from Wallstreet speeches.
Contradictions all over. Pro open borders. Pro world wide currency. Pro globalism and free trade (opposite of Bernie and Trump). Of course this is just about policy, nothing to see here. Let's focus on trump talking about hot ass.
Re: US Politics Thread
Right, Hillary helping the poor out of the goodness of her heart. I'm sure even democrats will struggle to believe that.
When you listen to the tape you can hear Hillary did a hell of a job to get the evidence thrown out, forcing a plea deal. If that's not getting your client off I don't know what is. No, obviously she is not in charge of sentencing, but she did her job and he walked for time already served. And now she remembers the case fondly because it helped her career.
Not a scandal in my book. I expect that is how most lawyers talk in private. But since macho talk in private is now suddenly a big deal to determine the fitness of a Presidential candidate I figured it was time to bring it up.
There is nothing in there that makes her a bad person in my book, on the contrary: I actually respect her a little bit more after hearing that audio fragment (so I now respect her a little bit, I guess). See, Hillary doing her job as a defense attorney by defending a child molester doesn't make her a child molester, she isn't boasting about committing a crime, she isn't bragging about anything except being great at her job. Trump on the other hand is bragging about things he himself did/can get away with. He is the child molester in this scenario. This is not just two politicians bragging, this is one politician bragging about her achievements and one bragging about being a misogynist pig.
You can't just throw out that video and say "see, she brags too, so she's equally despicable". The bragging is not the issue here.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
A true libertarian would argue that the unborn child has rights and freedoms... you act as if these women are removing their appendix.... This is not like getting fake tits or anything else dealing with body parts they were born with... This is about killing an unborn living child.
But it isn't an "unborn child" in more than 99% of the abortion cases, it's a fetus (or often even just an embryo). Those are not people, they are much more similar to an appendix than you might realize. It has the potential to become a person, but it isn't a person yet at that stage. Using the term "unborn child" is therefor not really conducive to having an honest conversation about this. It's a non-technical term that is laden with emotions and simply isn't accurate. A fetus exhibits none of the traits we associated with being a person until around week 16.
