Huh...

[tommyjo]

(Disclosure for those not bright enough to understand the difference. I do not support Ms. Clinton. I will not vote for Ms. Clinton. I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Trump. He is a buffoon and a carnival barker. He is unqualified to be President.)

So...been reading all the "truth" our resident media savvy person has been spewing since the first debate...as Mr. Trump continued his path of self destruction.

Lately the commentary has been centered around "the media" and it's lies. She even went so far as to say she would go and search out the commentary from Mr. Trump to see how it compares with how it is being reported. (Naturally, she spun this into a vast left wing conspiracy).

As Mr. Trump has sunk lower and lower into the gutter of politics, she went right with him. The new area is the Bill Clinton sex issues. Part of these is the story about the 12 year old rape victim and the claim that Ms. Clinton "laughed at the victim".

So I went and looked up the tape from free beacon. Here it is: http://freebeacon.com/politics/audi...nse-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/

It is pretty clear our "media savvy, truth seeker" has never bothered to listen to this. For there are a number of obvious falsehoods playing out in the right wing media:

1. Ms. Clinton never laughed at the victim.

2. She laughs in two places and both were in response to legal issues: First, she laughed at the polygraph results. Second she laughed at the realization of how badly the prosecution/crime lab had screwed up.

3. She was the defense attorney. It was her legal, ethical and fiduciary responsibility to do her utmost to get a positive outcome for her client.

4. The guy got off with a ridiculously light sentence not because of Ms. Clinton...she didn't do squat...the guy got off because the crime lab destroyed the evidence that would have convicted him.

Oh...and by the way...this recording is from 10 years after the trial...the victim was not involved.

So...it seems "the media" that is portraying this particular matter as some horrid display of Ms. Clinton's callousness isn't really reporting it truthfully now is it?

 

[This_person]

(Disclosure for those not bright enough to understand the difference. I do not support Ms. Clinton. I will not vote for Ms. Clinton...)

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, why do you not post as many negative things about Mrs. Clinton as you do about Trump? Surely there must be a negative in her past somewhere with which you can agree?

 

[This_person]

3. She was the defense attorney. It was her legal, ethical and fiduciary responsibility to do her utmost to get a positive outcome for her client.

So...it seems "the media" that is portraying this particular matter as some horrid display of Ms. Clinton's callousness isn't really reporting it truthfully now is it?

I would say you missed a word in #3. "...to do her ethical utmost to get...."

By laughing at the results of the polygraph, she strongly implies she knows the person was guilty of the crime. In her defense, she fabricated attacks on the victim. That is unethical whether she knew he was guilty or not, and substantially more unethical with her implicit knowledge of his guilt.

So, while you may dicker with semantics here and there, the general outcome is that she was unethical and callous and just plain an evil human in her handling of the case, and that seems to be accurate.

 

[PsyOps]

So...it seems "the media" that is portraying this particular matter as some horrid display of Ms. Clinton's callousness isn't really reporting it truthfully now is it?

There are dozens of other examples of Hillary's callousness that should have ruined any chance of having a future political career. She is a walking disease of hate and contempt for anyone she views as beneath her (which is pretty much everyone). Rather than act on her so-called "feminist nature" and leave her cheating and abusing husband, she destroyed the lives of the women her husband abused. She views at least a quarter of the voters as 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable'. There are tons of examples of her being quoted attacking and disparaging anyone that got in her way. That aside... Hillary Clinton lied to us over and over about Benghazi. She put every American life at risk with that private server, illegally processed classified information, then managed to use her influence to get the FBI and State Dept to dismiss the whole thing. Never in my lifetime have I seen such deep corruption and dishonesty.

Yet, all you can do is focus on things Trump say. You will continue to struggle to convince anyone that you're not a Clinton sympathizer and supporter when your tactics make it clear.

 

[vraiblonde]

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, why do you not post as many negative things about Mrs. Clinton as you do about Trump? Surely there must be a negative in her past somewhere with which you can agree?

There are countless negatives with Mrs. Clinton. TJ doesn't post about them because she is a Hillary supporter, whether she wants to admit it or not. Her posts are either A) criticizing Donald Trump, to the point of making crap up; or B) defending Hillary Clinton.

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who TJ will be voting for. Which is fine, but don't lie about it.

 

[tom88]

I would say you missed a word in #3. "...to do her ethical utmost to get...."

By laughing at the results of the polygraph, she strongly implies she knows the person was guilty of the crime. In her defense, she fabricated attacks on the victim. That is unethical whether she knew he was guilty or not, and substantially more unethical with her implicit knowledge of his guilt.

So, while you may dicker with semantics here and there, the general outcome is that she was unethical and callous and just plain an evil human in her handling of the case, and that seems to be accurate.

I agree with you that she is an evil human, but her job as a defense attorney is to raise all possible defenses. Unless she fabricated information, her ethical obligation is to raise doubt. An attorney may have the opinion that their client is guilty, but that doesn't excuse them from doing their job.

 

[tom88]

There are dozens of other examples of Hillary's callousness that should have ruined any chance of having a future political career. She is a walking disease of hate and contempt for anyone she views as beneath her (which is pretty much everyone). Rather than act on her so-called "feminist nature" and leave her cheating and abusing husband, she destroyed the lives of the women her husband abused. She views at least a quarter of the voters as 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable'. There are tons of examples of her being quoted attacking and disparaging anyone that got in her way. That aside... Hillary Clinton lied to us over and over about Benghazi. She put every American life at risk with that private server, illegally processed classified information, then managed to use her influence to get the FBI and State Dept to dismiss the whole thing. Never in my lifetime have I seen such deep corruption and dishonesty.

Yet, all you can do is focus on things Trump say. You will continue to struggle to convince anyone that you're not a Clinton sympathizer and supporter when your tactics make it clear.

I can agree with that!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, why do you not post as many negative things about Mrs. Clinton as you do about Trump? Surely there must be a negative in her past somewhere with which you can agree?

Not that I'm defending TJ, but I post a ton of anti-Trump stuff. Is there any need to profess my undying hatred toward Clinton to simply appease the other majority of forum members on here that do that very same thing and make sure they know I'm not a Clinton supporter?

I see no point in posting bad things about Clinton when, outside of nhboy, no other thread discusses her achievements or how great she is.

 

[This_person]

I agree with you that she is an evil human, but her job as a defense attorney is to raise all possible defenses. Unless she fabricated information, her ethical obligation is to raise doubt. An attorney may have the opinion that their client is guilty, but that doesn't excuse them from doing their job.

The "older man fantasy" defense she used was pure fabrication.

I agree every person deserves a defense. I have no issue with her defending him whether it was court ordered or by her choice - neither of those things would upset me. She fabricated information about a 12 year old girl. That's not a defense, but says a lot about her view of the law even then.

 

[This_person]

Not that I'm defending TJ, but I post a ton of anti-Trump stuff. Is there any need to profess my undying hatred toward Clinton to simply appease the other majority of forum members on here that do that very same thing and make sure they know I'm not a Clinton supporter?

I see no point in posting bad things about Clinton when, outside of nhboy, no other thread discusses her achievements or how great she is.

You specifically call out Clinton and do not defend her every step. This is the difference (among many)

 

[Gilligan]

I do not support Ms. Clinton. I will not vote for Ms. Clinton.

So you, like her, are a liar. Why am I not surprised?

 

[PsyOps]

I see no point in posting bad things about Clinton when, outside of nhboy, no other thread discusses her achievements or how great she is.

I think it's important to point out the depth of corruption that exists with Clinton that doesn't with Trump. That's not to say Trump hasn't behaved in any corrupt manner in his past, but I don't think it comes close to the level that exists with Clinton. Her entire purpose has been to achieve power, and to destroy anyone that gets in the way of that. There is not one thing I can think of that she has done in her life that was ever aimed at serving the people. It's been nothing but a trail of destruction and webs of lies to cover up that destruction. Given she is so close to winning the highest and most powerful office in the world, I think it's important to shout this from every rooftop.

 

[b23hqb]

Dear tj: "Huh..." Congratulations! You have just managed to string together a single syllable word. The first lucid, well organized thought!

You may be lifting your knuckles off the ground shortly.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I think it's important to point out the depth of corruption that exists with Clinton that doesn't with Trump. That's not to say Trump hasn't behaved in any corrupt manner in his past, but I don't think it comes close to the level that exists with Clinton. Her entire purpose has been to achieve power, and to destroy anyone that gets in the way of that. There is not one thing I can think of that she has done in her life that was ever aimed at serving the people. It's been nothing but a trail of destruction and webs of lies to cover up that destruction. Given she is so close to winning the highest and most powerful office in the world, I think it's important to shout this from every rooftop.

Absolutely. The more these e-mail leaks come out, the more it's clear she is a robot politician.

I'm just not convinced Trump is in it to really "make America great again". I think he enjoys power as well and while he hasn;t enjoyed power in the political arena, I fear now is his chance. We'll see.

 

[PsyOps]

Absolutely. The more these e-mail leaks come out, the more it's clear she is a robot politician.

I'm just not convinced Trump is in it to really "make America great again". I think he enjoys power as well and while he hasn;t enjoyed power in the political arena, I fear now is his chance. We'll see.

Anyone running for president has to have some level of arrogance and desire for power. I have lots of questions and doubts about how he will use that power; especially how it pertains to his business ventures. The Clintons, going all the way back to Arkansas have a very long track record of corruption and destroying lives. There is no evidence that they will do anything different when she gets into that Whitehouse. I think she will use the power of that office to double-down on her political enemies - those deplorables. She's not a robot... she is someone with the evilest of intentions with a very focused purpose on implementing her very extreme progressive/leftist agenda.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Anyone running for president has to have some level of arrogance and desire for power. I have lots of questions and doubts about how he will use that power; especially how it pertains to his business ventures. The Clintons, going all the way back to Arkansas have a very long track record of corruption and destroying lives. There is no evidence that they will do anything different when she gets into that Whitehouse. I think she will use the power of that office to double-down on her political enemies - those deplorables. She's not a robot... she is someone with the evilest of intentions with a very focused purpose on implementing her very extreme progressive/leftist agenda.

Which is why is surprises me that Trump is the guy to beat her.

He won't. Clinton will win and we'll have to deal with her evil for at least 4 years, unfortunately.

I'm just bummed that we're getting further away from a message of smaller government and less reliance on government.

 

[vraiblonde]

Absolutely. The more these e-mail leaks come out, the more it's clear she is a robot politician.

She is way more than a "robot politician". She is part and parcel of the corruption that has no place in a republic. She and her press minions are everything that is wrong with the US. And if you think that's what our Founding Fathers meant by "freedom of the press", you are sorely mistaken.

 

[vraiblonde]

He won't. Clinton will win and we'll have to deal with her evil for at least 4 years, unfortunately.

Try 8 years, pal. And try another 8 years of whatever fascist they install after her. I'll bet you cash right now that after that we won't even be having "elections" anymore. Name the amount.

 

[PsyOps]

Try 8 years, pal. And try another 8 years of whatever fascist they install after her. I'll bet you cash right now that after that we won't even be having "elections" anymore. Name the amount.

Naw... we'll still be having elections. We have to give the appearance to the rest of the world that we are still a democracy. But they will be faux elections like you see in Iran.

 

[b23hqb]

Naw... we'll still be having elections. We have to give the appearance to the rest of the world that we are still a democracy. But they will be faux elections like you see in Iran.

So we might as well start laying the frame work for the upcoming revolution in whatever way, shape or form required to uphold the Constitution. These donks sure won't uphold that.