[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Author Thread
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
10/27/2016  11:18 AM
i can't make this a blanket statement but the few people i know that either are supporting trump or are still undecided at this point all have said some subconciously deeply sexist things. i don't think alot of men know just how sexist we are as a society. i don't want to hear about respecting your wife/daughter/mother crap. i'm talking about just the general way we treat women and regard their place in society.

women are still 2nd class citizens. times are changing but they still are. guys still think it's ok to talk or treat women a certain way b/c "they are trying to get laid". it's some really f cked up ****. i can't believe ANY woman would ever vote for trump b/c his behavior and comments are at a neandrethal level. he really is a disgusting pig of a person in his views about women.

and his supporters on tv behave the same way. so many people are still supporting him even tho at the time of the tape leak, they said "well i have daughters, wives and that language doesn't stand" BULLSHIT - it does stand. republicans in this race only care when they are personally attacked by trump - which proves that they don't really care about the people or what he represents.

megan kelly didn't really get upset at trump UNTIL HE DIRECTLY INSULTED HER. only then did she take him to task for his sexist behavior. all his female surrogates still let his sexist statements and behavior just slide b/c they aren't directly effect. that is BULLSHIT. kasich is one of the few men in the republican party that has principles. he said FU to trump and he'll be better off in the long run for it.

trump calling out women TO THIS DAY about their appearance is one of the most digusting things i've ever seen. i'm getting riled up just talking about it but it's really f cked up on such a deep level. and many men just don't give a ****.

as men, we all joke around and say **** in private with the fellas but we know what's right to say and what's not right to say. this guy is a predator - plain and simple.

that's why so many republican men are pro-life, b/c they still feel the need to show power over women and control what they can do with their bodies. it's twisted and it's one of the last few ways they can still do this.

sorry for the rant but damn...i can't believe so many people are being conned by this fool.

AUTOADVERT
Nalod
Posts: 71144
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
10/27/2016  11:34 AM
djsunyc wrote:i can't make this a blanket statement but the few people i know that either are supporting trump or are still undecided at this point all have said some subconciously deeply sexist things. i don't think alot of men know just how sexist we are as a society. i don't want to hear about respecting your wife/daughter/mother crap. i'm talking about just the general way we treat women and regard their place in society.

women are still 2nd class citizens. times are changing but they still are. guys still think it's ok to talk or treat women a certain way b/c "they are trying to get laid". it's some really f cked up ****. i can't believe ANY woman would ever vote for trump b/c his behavior and comments are at a neandrethal level. he really is a disgusting pig of a person in his views about women.

and his supporters on tv behave the same way. so many people are still supporting him even tho at the time of the tape leak, they said "well i have daughters, wives and that language doesn't stand" BULLSHIT - it does stand. republicans in this race only care when they are personally attacked by trump - which proves that they don't really care about the people or what he represents.

megan kelly didn't really get upset at trump UNTIL HE DIRECTLY INSULTED HER. only then did she take him to task for his sexist behavior. all his female surrogates still let his sexist statements and behavior just slide b/c they aren't directly effect. that is BULLSHIT. kasich is one of the few men in the republican party that has principles. he said FU to trump and he'll be better off in the long run for it.

trump calling out women TO THIS DAY about their appearance is one of the most digusting things i've ever seen. i'm getting riled up just talking about it but it's really f cked up on such a deep level. and many men just don't give a ****.

as men, we all joke around and say **** in private with the fellas but we know what's right to say and what's not right to say. this guy is a predator - plain and simple.

that's why so many republican men are pro-life, b/c they still feel the need to show power over women and control what they can do with their bodies. it's twisted and it's one of the last few ways they can still do this.

sorry for the rant but damn...i can't believe so many people are being conned by this fool.

babes love this kind of stuff! It will get you laid!!!

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  12:11 PM
djsunyc wrote:i can't make this a blanket statement but the few people i know that either are supporting trump or are still undecided at this point all have said some subconciously deeply sexist things. i don't think alot of men know just how sexist we are as a society. i don't want to hear about respecting your wife/daughter/mother crap. i'm talking about just the general way we treat women and regard their place in society.

women are still 2nd class citizens. times are changing but they still are. guys still think it's ok to talk or treat women a certain way b/c "they are trying to get laid". it's some really f cked up ****. i can't believe ANY woman would ever vote for trump b/c his behavior and comments are at a neandrethal level. he really is a disgusting pig of a person in his views about women.

and his supporters on tv behave the same way. so many people are still supporting him even tho at the time of the tape leak, they said "well i have daughters, wives and that language doesn't stand" BULLSHIT - it does stand. republicans in this race only care when they are personally attacked by trump - which proves that they don't really care about the people or what he represents.

megan kelly didn't really get upset at trump UNTIL HE DIRECTLY INSULTED HER. only then did she take him to task for his sexist behavior. all his female surrogates still let his sexist statements and behavior just slide b/c they aren't directly effect. that is BULLSHIT. kasich is one of the few men in the republican party that has principles. he said FU to trump and he'll be better off in the long run for it.

trump calling out women TO THIS DAY about their appearance is one of the most digusting things i've ever seen. i'm getting riled up just talking about it but it's really f cked up on such a deep level. and many men just don't give a ****.

as men, we all joke around and say **** in private with the fellas but we know what's right to say and what's not right to say. this guy is a predator - plain and simple.

that's why so many republican men are pro-life, b/c they still feel the need to show power over women and control what they can do with their bodies. it's twisted and it's one of the last few ways they can still do this.

sorry for the rant but damn...i can't believe so many people are being conned by this fool.

One of the things people need to wrap their head around in this country is that culturally, so many of us speak a different language and perceive the world in a different way.

Literally and genuinely.

I don't think Briggs and gunsnewing intend to see and interpret what's apparent to others differently, its that they literally perceive these things differently.

gunsnewing isn't intentionally TRYING to excuse Trump for sexual assault by twisting his words to make it appear like he described asking for consent, I suspect he really see it that way.

The problem is his inability to consider it the other way so many, including pretty have EVERYONE has.

I think gunsnewing genuinely thinks America is changing for the worse, and not sure he understands why other people don't share his view. But he doesn't seem to want to understand

I don't think Briggs intentionally misrepresents facts, but he doesn't care to consider he may be wrong when challenged.

In all those cases, its the latter things that are the problem.

That we speak different languages is an issue. That a particular side doesn't seem to know there are more than one language is the bigger problem.

GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
10/27/2016  12:12 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics.

I get why people hold that POV, but IMO it is also somewhat a selective one and reduces her to a caricature.

Her full biography reveals a person who from a very early age through more than half of her life demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service, particularly in regard to the welfare of children.

If people want to view her full biography as some sort of craven pre-meditated long-term masterplan to rise to the corridors of political power, they can and apparently do.

What it demonstrates to me is the capacity for genuine compassion and public service is there, and seen through that lens it becomes more difficult to reduce her to a Bond villain.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?

Acknowledge? Certainly.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?


Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS, so IMO yes, it could have been written for just that case or to create an alternate caricature of her. Alternate to the one that many people do maintain for her and for good reason. Even BO and MO called her out during the 2008 campaign as being dishonest.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case? Maybe that was the inspiration for her to be an advocate for children but if so, then reach out and apologize to that girl and now woman!

The latest leaks show her campaign staff to treat "women and brown" people as objects to be used when they need a certain message. The leaked memo that exposes "Bill Clinton Inc" and how they get donations essentially so he can have a salary. Corporations pay for their vacations, plane rides, whatever. The leaks show that her own staff compared WJC to Cosby an admission of equivalence! There is evidence of possible pay for play while SOS. The Podesta-Russia thing that Assange himself was on today talking about!

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I simply cannot. To me her entire public image is made up and IMO, bears little or no resemblance to who she is.

DJT's image is who he is and I absolutley accept your argument as to why you cannot support him.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?

Simply accept that he wins, not contest and give him a fair shake to do the job regardless of your opinion of him personally.

arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
10/27/2016  12:26 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics.

I get why people hold that POV, but IMO it is also somewhat a selective one and reduces her to a caricature.

Her full biography reveals a person who from a very early age through more than half of her life demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service, particularly in regard to the welfare of children.

If people want to view her full biography as some sort of craven pre-meditated long-term masterplan to rise to the corridors of political power, they can and apparently do.

What it demonstrates to me is the capacity for genuine compassion and public service is there, and seen through that lens it becomes more difficult to reduce her to a Bond villain.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?

Acknowledge? Certainly.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?


Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS, so IMO yes, it could have been written for just that case or to create an alternate caricature of her. Alternate to the one that many people do maintain for her and for good reason. Even BO and MO called her out during the 2008 campaign as being dishonest.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case? Maybe that was the inspiration for her to be an advocate for children but if so, then reach out and apologize to that girl and now woman!

The latest leaks show her campaign staff to treat "women and brown" people as objects to be used when they need a certain message. The leaked memo that exposes "Bill Clinton Inc" and how they get donations essentially so he can have a salary. Corporations pay for their vacations, plane rides, whatever. The leaks show that her own staff compared WJC to Cosby an admission of equivalence! There is evidence of possible pay for play while SOS. The Podesta-Russia thing that Assange himself was on today talking about!

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I simply cannot. To me her entire public image is made up and IMO, bears little or no resemblance to who she is.

DJT's image is who he is and I absolutley accept your argument as to why you cannot support him.

The political establishment in US is a reality show created to entertain the public.
Current set of clowns is fascinating and amusing.
It does not really matter who is the face of the power or if it even has a face.
Our society is self-driving machine oiled by law and fueled by wealth.
The driver just directed to keep a hand on the wheel so passengers will be comforted.
And elections exist to make passengers think that they are in control.
So don't worry, we will have a happy ending regardless.


"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

10/27/2016  12:28 PM
Welpee wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

Do you ever do your own fact checking or do you just buy every talking point that sounds good to you and just roll with it?

The political battle is won or lost based on opinions. Facts are overrated, awkward klunky things that seem to greedy in the way.

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
10/27/2016  12:32 PM
meloshouldgo wrote:
Welpee wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

Do you ever do your own fact checking or do you just buy every talking point that sounds good to you and just roll with it?

The political battle is won or lost based on opinions. Facts are overrated, awkward klunky things that seem to greedy in the way.

We have come to the point where fact checking needs fact checking.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  12:34 PM
djsunyc wrote:i can't make this a blanket statement but the few people i know that either are supporting trump or are still undecided at this point all have said some subconciously deeply sexist things. i don't think alot of men know just how sexist we are as a society. i don't want to hear about respecting your wife/daughter/mother crap. i'm talking about just the general way we treat women and regard their place in society.

women are still 2nd class citizens. times are changing but they still are. guys still think it's ok to talk or treat women a certain way b/c "they are trying to get laid". it's some really f cked up ****. i can't believe ANY woman would ever vote for trump b/c his behavior and comments are at a neandrethal level. he really is a disgusting pig of a person in his views about women.

and his supporters on tv behave the same way. so many people are still supporting him even tho at the time of the tape leak, they said "well i have daughters, wives and that language doesn't stand" BULLSHIT - it does stand. republicans in this race only care when they are personally attacked by trump - which proves that they don't really care about the people or what he represents.

megan kelly didn't really get upset at trump UNTIL HE DIRECTLY INSULTED HER. only then did she take him to task for his sexist behavior. all his female surrogates still let his sexist statements and behavior just slide b/c they aren't directly effect. that is BULLSHIT. kasich is one of the few men in the republican party that has principles. he said FU to trump and he'll be better off in the long run for it.

trump calling out women TO THIS DAY about their appearance is one of the most digusting things i've ever seen. i'm getting riled up just talking about it but it's really f cked up on such a deep level. and many men just don't give a ****.

as men, we all joke around and say **** in private with the fellas but we know what's right to say and what's not right to say. this guy is a predator - plain and simple.

that's why so many republican men are pro-life, b/c they still feel the need to show power over women and control what they can do with their bodies. it's twisted and it's one of the last few ways they can still do this.

sorry for the rant but damn...i can't believe so many people are being conned by this fool.

Amen brother...I'm in your pew...I really don't get the treatment of women thing...How can we overlook this guy rolling in on a naked 15 year old girl...How is this acceptable to anyone regardless of marriage/sister/whatever...Why is it ok to tell any woman what to do with her body and make it legislation??..I can't get over that with my republican friends...That decision is between that woman and her god...That's freedom...

How can a scumbag like this get so close to the Presidency after all that has been brought up in his past..How is any of this excusable...It doesn't have anything to do with politics but just common decency..

SupremeCommander
Posts: 34057
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127

10/27/2016  12:46 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  1:02 PM
Look there is no fukkin way I'm voting for that radioactive orangeblobman

that said

I fukkin hate Hillary too. This **** is ridiculous:

Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton’s Aides, Emails Show
By STEVE EDER and AMY CHOZICKOCT. 26, 2016

In the years before Hillary Clinton announced she would run again for president, her top aides expressed profound concerns in internal emails about how foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s own moneymaking ventures would affect Mrs. Clinton’s political future.

The emails, obtained by hackers and being gradually released by WikiLeaks this month, also are revealing how efforts to minimize potential conflicts at the foundation led to power struggles and infighting among aides and Mrs. Clinton’s family.

One top aide to Mr. Clinton, Douglas J. Band, noted in an email that the former president had received personal income from some foundation donors and “gets many expensive gifts from them.”

Chelsea Clinton accused her father’s aides of taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally,” of “hustling” during foundation events to win clients for their own business, and of even installing spyware on her chief of staff’s computer.

Hillary Clinton, another email showed, had promised to attend a Clinton Foundation gathering in Morocco at the behest of its king, who had pledged $12 million to the charity. Her advisers worried that would look unseemly just as she was beginning her presidential campaign in earnest.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” a close aide, Huma Abedin, wrote of Mrs. Clinton in a January 2015 email.

For months, the Clintons have defended their foundation, making public proclamations that it went above and beyond what the law required in terms of transparency while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.

But they do show pronounced worries among the Clintons’ closest advisers about the millions of dollars coming into the foundation, and to Mr. Clinton personally, and how they could inoculate Mrs. Clinton from criticism over it.

“Do they plan to do big events next year?” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, asked about the foundation last year, shortly after Mrs. Clinton kicked off her presidential campaign. “Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?”

Founded in 1997, when Mr. Clinton was still president, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion to fund projects around the world, helping African farmers improve their yields, Haitians recover from a devastating 2010 earthquake and millions of people gain access to cheaper H.I.V./AIDS medication, among other accomplishments.

Some of the former president’s staff members followed him from the White House to the foundation, and the emails provide an extraordinary look at the soap opera that unfolded years later as people close to the couple felt their power threatened.

“This is the 3rd time this week where she has gone to daddy to change a decision or interject herself,” Mr. Band, the longtime aide to Mr. Clinton, wrote about Chelsea Clinton in 2011.

At the time, she was beginning to exert influence at the foundation, expressing concerns that Mr. Band and others were trying to use the charity to make money for themselves, and accusing another aide in her father’s personal office of installing spyware.

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.


In another email, Mr. Band wrote that Mr. Clinton had even received gifts from some donors.

The tensions came to a head when Chelsea Clinton helped enlist an outside law firm to audit the Clinton Foundation’s practices. Some interviewees told the audit team that the donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift.” The audit suggested the foundation “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

The advice proved prescient as Mrs. Clinton faced intense scrutiny about whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received special access to her State Department or other rewards. In August, the foundation said it would no longer accept foreign donations should Mrs. Clinton win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed criticism of the charity as politically motivated. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Glen Caplin, declined to verify the authenticity of the emails, but said the hack was part of the Russian government’s efforts to use cyberattacks to influence the election in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Band’s firm released a statement saying: “Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Behind the scenes, Mrs. Clinton’s aides grappled with how to sever her from the problematic optics of some of the philanthropy’s fund-raising practices.

In an October 2014 email, Mr. Mook asked whether Mrs. Clinton’s name would be used in connection with the foundation, which is formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. “It will invite press scrutiny and she’ll be held accountable for what happens there,” he wrote.

The next year, when Mrs. Clinton was on the verge of declaring her candidacy, Cheryl D. Mills, a lawyer and top aide, said she discussed with Mrs. Clinton various “steps” to take to adjust her relationship with the foundation, including her resignation from the foundation’s board.

By fall 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s aides had fine-tuned her response to questions about foreign donors. “As President, I won’t permit any conflicts between my work for the American people and the Foundation’s good work,” aides advised Mrs. Clinton to say in a coming debate.

The emails give insight into the periodic fires that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought they had to put out. Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not attend the foundation event in Morocco that Ms. Abedin had complained about; her husband and daughter did go. It is unclear if the king had given the $12 million he was said to have pledged; he is not listed among the foundation’s donors.

In March 2015, Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who had given more than $10 million to the foundation, was “relentlessly” requesting a meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to an aide, Amitabh Desai. If the former president declined, the relationship would be damaged, Mr. Desai wrote in an email.

“No is better. Is that viable?” wrote Mr. Podesta, who by then was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is unclear if the meeting took place.

That same year, during a discussion over a potential meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Saudi king, Mr. Podesta replied, using the former president’s initials, “Not something that would be on our top 10 list of WJC requests.”

Mr. Podesta took a leadership role at the charity when Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House counsel and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton who had been chief executive of the foundation, had a stroke in 2011.

His role at the foundation, coupled with his later capacity as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, put Mr. Podesta in the middle of internal workings of both operations and, by default, the delicate battles unfolding between Chelsea Clinton and her father’s top aides.

The day Mrs. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, died in 2011, Chelsea Clinton emailed Mr. Podesta. “Doug called and yelled and screamed at my Dad about how could he do this,” she said, a reference to the internal scrutiny going on at the foundation. “My mother is exhausted, we are all heartbroken but we need a strategy and my father needs advice/counsel.”

Mr. Band has said the exchange described in the email never happened.

Mr. Band, who helped Mr. Clinton build the foundation, clearly felt irritated by Chelsea Clinton’s stream of implications that he had padded his own pockets from his work for her father.


1123
COMMENTS
When Chelsea Clinton, using a pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” that she also sometimes used to check into hotels, sent Mr. Band a complimentary email in January 2012, he forwarded it to Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills.

“As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far,” he wrote. “A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking the knife in the back, and front.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html?_r=0

Thank God for Bipileaks

DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  12:49 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I use biography in the lowercase general sense, not the uppercase proper sense meaning an authored embellishment.

She has done things in her life ... she has a resume that isn't disputed by anyone.

I'm talking about jobs she had, period. Not anyone's narrative characterization of why she did them.

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS

She first came to the White House as a 45 year old, as the wife of an unlikely president.

She came of intellectual age as was drawn to public service in the 70s, when the idea of a female president wasn't quite different than it is today.

I'm sorry, I do have a difficult time believing her first 45 years and marriage to again a very unlikely presidential candidate was some craven master plan to become President in her 70s.

The idea of it strikes me as ludicrous.

And once you begin to see this person as a person and not a public fugure and acknowledge things she did from 16-years-old to 45, its harder to connect the dots some do.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

But this is my point. You cite the things that serve your purpose, ignoring the ones that don't.

I'm in no way arguing she isn't flawed. I'm just arguing she's an actual person, and not a movie villain.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case?

Seriously?

Because our system of justice requires someone do it. That was her job.

We decided long ago that EVERYONE, no matter how vile, deserves a defense. That while imperfect, we sometimes have to let bad people go in deference to a system that serves a greater good.

I'm sorry, there is plenty to criticize her for. That one is right out of the trying-too-hard camp. Maybe like most people she has regrets about how she faced that dilemma, but please don't argue that her option was to defend the child. It was not.

There are good lawyers who genuinely believe even monsters deserve a vigorous defense. It is a much more nuanced issue that it is made out to be.

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I've been clear about this repeatedly. It is a binary decision.

What's disturbing is the game is has become. How it is team sport oriented.

Obama WAS targeted by many of the same powers (including Trump) for being black. That is an indisputable fact. Many Clinton detractors have done themselves a disservice by spending so much of their intellectual credibility on that crusade. It is human nature to circle the wagons.

I suspect people in the left are just tired on the unending din of "this person will ruin America", and to be fair, it works in reverse too. The discourse is just awful. It makes people defend both sides more vigorously than they probably should.

That's why MY focus is ON the discourse. If it doesn't improve, the decisions are just going to get worse and worse and being more rooted in zealotry and extremism.

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/27/2016  12:58 PM
gunsnewing wrote:
fishmike wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
holfresh wrote:I'm curious, isn't walking in on naked 15 year old girls against the law?? Why haven't someone arrested Donald Trump and question him about this episode..Hasn't anyone in the beauty pageant come forward?? How could that not be a criminal act??..He is a voyeur and admitted it on Howard Stern show..

If this happened in the setting of a school then it's a crime, why not in this case??

Anyone saying Hillary is a criminal is being hypocritical. Trump has allegedly done far worse things than Hillary has done, and he actually confessed on tape to one of the crimes.

Can you imagine the SHAME America would have to face if Billy Perv Clinton becomes America's first First Gentleman? What a joke. A shameful, DIRTY joke.

why would there be shame for Bill but not for Donald who has admitted to groping, too openly treating women like dirt, to wandering around naked underage women because "he runs the pagent." Why do YOU guns find shame in Bill but not in Trump? What a joke.

Trump said "if she lets you"

meaning they consented. AT THE TIME


Seriously? He said he has so much power they're forced to "let" him assault them. If you point a gun at someone, they'll "let" you assault them too. I guess that's considered consent to Trump supporters!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  1:00 PM
arkrud wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics.

I get why people hold that POV, but IMO it is also somewhat a selective one and reduces her to a caricature.

Her full biography reveals a person who from a very early age through more than half of her life demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service, particularly in regard to the welfare of children.

If people want to view her full biography as some sort of craven pre-meditated long-term masterplan to rise to the corridors of political power, they can and apparently do.

What it demonstrates to me is the capacity for genuine compassion and public service is there, and seen through that lens it becomes more difficult to reduce her to a Bond villain.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?

Acknowledge? Certainly.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?


Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS, so IMO yes, it could have been written for just that case or to create an alternate caricature of her. Alternate to the one that many people do maintain for her and for good reason. Even BO and MO called her out during the 2008 campaign as being dishonest.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case? Maybe that was the inspiration for her to be an advocate for children but if so, then reach out and apologize to that girl and now woman!

The latest leaks show her campaign staff to treat "women and brown" people as objects to be used when they need a certain message. The leaked memo that exposes "Bill Clinton Inc" and how they get donations essentially so he can have a salary. Corporations pay for their vacations, plane rides, whatever. The leaks show that her own staff compared WJC to Cosby an admission of equivalence! There is evidence of possible pay for play while SOS. The Podesta-Russia thing that Assange himself was on today talking about!

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I simply cannot. To me her entire public image is made up and IMO, bears little or no resemblance to who she is.

DJT's image is who he is and I absolutley accept your argument as to why you cannot support him.

The political establishment in US is a reality show created to entertain the public.
Current set of clowns is fascinating and amusing.
It does not really matter who is the face of the power or if it even has a face.
Our society is self-driving machine oiled by law and fueled by wealth.
The driver just directed to keep a hand on the wheel so passengers will be comforted.
And elections exist to make passengers think that they are in control.
So don't worry, we will have a happy ending regardless.

I'll entertain this premise.

What would you be doing in a genuinely free society?

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  1:00 PM
Vmart wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Welpee wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

Do you ever do your own fact checking or do you just buy every talking point that sounds good to you and just roll with it?

The political battle is won or lost based on opinions. Facts are overrated, awkward klunky things that seem to greedy in the way.

We have come to the point where fact checking needs fact checking.

Example?

GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
10/27/2016  1:03 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I use biography in the lowercase general sense, not the uppercase proper sense meaning an authored embellishment.

She has done things in her life ... she has a resume that isn't disputed by anyone.

I'm talking about jobs she had, period. Not anyone's narrative characterization of why she did them.

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS

She first came to the White House as a 45 year old, as the wife of an unlikely president.

She came of intellectual age as was drawn to public service in the 70s, when the idea of a female president wasn't quite different than it is today.

I'm sorry, I do have a difficult time believing her first 45 years and marriage to again a very unlikely presidential candidate was some craven master plan to become President in her 70s.

The idea of it strikes me as ludicrous.

And once you begin to see this person as a person and not a public fugure and acknowledge things she did from 16-years-old to 45, its harder to connect the dots some do.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

But this is my point. You cite the things that serve your purpose, ignoring the ones that don't.

I'm in no way arguing she isn't flawed. I'm just arguing she's an actual person, and not a movie villain.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case?

Seriously?

Because our system of justice requires someone do it. That was her job.

We decided long ago that EVERYONE, no matter how vile, deserves a defense. That while imperfect, we sometimes have to let bad people go in deference to a system that serves a greater good.

I'm sorry, there is plenty to criticize her for. That one is right out of the trying-too-hard camp. Maybe like most people she has regrets about how she faced that dilemma, but please don't argue that her option was to defend the child. It was not.

There are good lawyers who genuinely believe even monsters deserve a vigorous defense. It is a much more nuanced issue that it is made out to be.

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I've been clear about this repeatedly. It is a binary decision.

What's disturbing is the game is has become. How it is team sport oriented.

Obama WAS targeted by many of the same powers (including Trump) for being black. That is an indisputable fact. Many Clinton detractors have done themselves a disservice by spending so much of their intellectual credibility on that crusade. It is human nature to circle the wagons.

I suspect people in the left are just tired on the unending din of "this person will ruin America", and to be fair, it works in reverse too. The discourse is just awful. It makes people defend both sides more vigorously than they probably should.

That's why MY focus is ON the discourse. If it doesn't improve, the decisions are just going to get worse and worse and being more rooted in zealotry and extremism.

You are correct in your explanation of a right to counsel and defense. I am not saying she could have defended the child. She was on the other side and had a job, I get that, but in the end, did she apologize to the girl , a child? As an advocate for children, why not even if it is thirty years later?

Discourse is awful and I think you will agree we have seen much of it on this thread.

I appreciate the discussion.

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  1:22 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  1:24 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:You are correct in your explanation of a right to counsel and defense. I am not saying she could have defended the child. She was on the other side and had a job, I get that, but in the end, did she apologize to the girl , a child? As an advocate for children, why not even if it is thirty years later?

I don't know, man. Maybe because she's a horrible, horrible person?

The issue of why or why she hasn't apologized doesn't interest me that much.

What does interest me is observing the fact that if she had (independent on whether she should or should not, wants to or not) she'd almost certainly be killed by her critics for it being a craven political calculation, too little too late.

I can hear Kayleigh McEnany killing her for it on CNN in my head and the fight she's get into with Paul Begala.

arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
10/27/2016  1:26 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics.

I get why people hold that POV, but IMO it is also somewhat a selective one and reduces her to a caricature.

Her full biography reveals a person who from a very early age through more than half of her life demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service, particularly in regard to the welfare of children.

If people want to view her full biography as some sort of craven pre-meditated long-term masterplan to rise to the corridors of political power, they can and apparently do.

What it demonstrates to me is the capacity for genuine compassion and public service is there, and seen through that lens it becomes more difficult to reduce her to a Bond villain.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?

Acknowledge? Certainly.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?


Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS, so IMO yes, it could have been written for just that case or to create an alternate caricature of her. Alternate to the one that many people do maintain for her and for good reason. Even BO and MO called her out during the 2008 campaign as being dishonest.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case? Maybe that was the inspiration for her to be an advocate for children but if so, then reach out and apologize to that girl and now woman!

The latest leaks show her campaign staff to treat "women and brown" people as objects to be used when they need a certain message. The leaked memo that exposes "Bill Clinton Inc" and how they get donations essentially so he can have a salary. Corporations pay for their vacations, plane rides, whatever. The leaks show that her own staff compared WJC to Cosby an admission of equivalence! There is evidence of possible pay for play while SOS. The Podesta-Russia thing that Assange himself was on today talking about!

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I simply cannot. To me her entire public image is made up and IMO, bears little or no resemblance to who she is.

DJT's image is who he is and I absolutley accept your argument as to why you cannot support him.

The political establishment in US is a reality show created to entertain the public.
Current set of clowns is fascinating and amusing.
It does not really matter who is the face of the power or if it even has a face.
Our society is self-driving machine oiled by law and fueled by wealth.
The driver just directed to keep a hand on the wheel so passengers will be comforted.
And elections exist to make passengers think that they are in control.
So don't worry, we will have a happy ending regardless.

I'll entertain this premise.

What would you be doing in a genuinely free society?

Freedom is realized necessity.
Being free meaning understand the necessities and be in piece with them.
We as spices are not free of the environment, society, family, traditions, morals, and even our own mind.
One person, even with a lot of assigned or assumed power is nothing comparing to this forces which are driving our lives.
One can only find freedom and happiness within and no one from outside can do nothing about it.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/27/2016  1:29 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I use biography in the lowercase general sense, not the uppercase proper sense meaning an authored embellishment.

She has done things in her life ... she has a resume that isn't disputed by anyone.

I'm talking about jobs she had, period. Not anyone's narrative characterization of why she did them.

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS

She first came to the White House as a 45 year old, as the wife of an unlikely president.

She came of intellectual age as was drawn to public service in the 70s, when the idea of a female president wasn't quite different than it is today.

I'm sorry, I do have a difficult time believing her first 45 years and marriage to again a very unlikely presidential candidate was some craven master plan to become President in her 70s.

The idea of it strikes me as ludicrous.

And once you begin to see this person as a person and not a public fugure and acknowledge things she did from 16-years-old to 45, its harder to connect the dots some do.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

But this is my point. You cite the things that serve your purpose, ignoring the ones that don't.

I'm in no way arguing she isn't flawed. I'm just arguing she's an actual person, and not a movie villain.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case?

Seriously?

Because our system of justice requires someone do it. That was her job.

We decided long ago that EVERYONE, no matter how vile, deserves a defense. That while imperfect, we sometimes have to let bad people go in deference to a system that serves a greater good.

I'm sorry, there is plenty to criticize her for. That one is right out of the trying-too-hard camp. Maybe like most people she has regrets about how she faced that dilemma, but please don't argue that her option was to defend the child. It was not.

There are good lawyers who genuinely believe even monsters deserve a vigorous defense. It is a much more nuanced issue that it is made out to be.

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I've been clear about this repeatedly. It is a binary decision.

What's disturbing is the game is has become. How it is team sport oriented.

Obama WAS targeted by many of the same powers (including Trump) for being black. That is an indisputable fact. Many Clinton detractors have done themselves a disservice by spending so much of their intellectual credibility on that crusade. It is human nature to circle the wagons.

I suspect people in the left are just tired on the unending din of "this person will ruin America", and to be fair, it works in reverse too. The discourse is just awful. It makes people defend both sides more vigorously than they probably should.

That's why MY focus is ON the discourse. If it doesn't improve, the decisions are just going to get worse and worse and being more rooted in zealotry and extremism.

You are correct in your explanation of a right to counsel and defense. I am not saying she could have defended the child. She was on the other side and had a job, I get that, but in the end, did she apologize to the girl , a child? As an advocate for children, why not even if it is thirty years later?

Discourse is awful and I think you will agree we have seen much of it on this thread.

I appreciate the discussion.


If we're talking about the same case, many sources indicate she asked to be removed from it but was not allowed to be. I don't know if she apologized or not but she shouldn't have to apologize for doing her job. I would not agree with a rule that defense attorneys should be expected to apologize to the alleged victims. She was just a 28 year old who reluctantly did a job she had to do. (And she shouldn't be expected to quit her job either.)
Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
10/27/2016  1:34 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
Vmart wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Welpee wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

Do you ever do your own fact checking or do you just buy every talking point that sounds good to you and just roll with it?

The political battle is won or lost based on opinions. Facts are overrated, awkward klunky things that seem to greedy in the way.

We have come to the point where fact checking needs fact checking.

Example?

When people are involved even facts get lost or intentionally lost for the purpose of what they believe.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/28/trump-and-iraq-case-study-whats-wrong-fact-checking

This is what fox concluded I'm sure CNN conclusion was different.

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  1:40 PM
arkrud wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics.

I get why people hold that POV, but IMO it is also somewhat a selective one and reduces her to a caricature.

Her full biography reveals a person who from a very early age through more than half of her life demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service, particularly in regard to the welfare of children.

If people want to view her full biography as some sort of craven pre-meditated long-term masterplan to rise to the corridors of political power, they can and apparently do.

What it demonstrates to me is the capacity for genuine compassion and public service is there, and seen through that lens it becomes more difficult to reduce her to a Bond villain.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?

Acknowledge? Certainly.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?


Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS, so IMO yes, it could have been written for just that case or to create an alternate caricature of her. Alternate to the one that many people do maintain for her and for good reason. Even BO and MO called her out during the 2008 campaign as being dishonest.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case? Maybe that was the inspiration for her to be an advocate for children but if so, then reach out and apologize to that girl and now woman!

The latest leaks show her campaign staff to treat "women and brown" people as objects to be used when they need a certain message. The leaked memo that exposes "Bill Clinton Inc" and how they get donations essentially so he can have a salary. Corporations pay for their vacations, plane rides, whatever. The leaks show that her own staff compared WJC to Cosby an admission of equivalence! There is evidence of possible pay for play while SOS. The Podesta-Russia thing that Assange himself was on today talking about!

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I simply cannot. To me her entire public image is made up and IMO, bears little or no resemblance to who she is.

DJT's image is who he is and I absolutley accept your argument as to why you cannot support him.

The political establishment in US is a reality show created to entertain the public.
Current set of clowns is fascinating and amusing.
It does not really matter who is the face of the power or if it even has a face.
Our society is self-driving machine oiled by law and fueled by wealth.
The driver just directed to keep a hand on the wheel so passengers will be comforted.
And elections exist to make passengers think that they are in control.
So don't worry, we will have a happy ending regardless.

I'll entertain this premise.

What would you be doing in a genuinely free society?

Freedom is realized necessity.
Being free meaning understand the necessities and be in piece with them.
We as spices are not free of the environment, society, family, traditions, morals, and even our own mind.
One person, even with a lot of assigned or assumed power is nothing comparing to this forces which are driving our lives.
One can only find freedom and happiness within and no one from outside can do nothing about it.

Okay, I grant you possess freedom and happiness within. Not being snarky, I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.

But I think the question is still a fair one. I'm not sure if you're arguing our current political (or societal) system is natural, inevitable state of being or a perverted one.

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  1:45 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  1:46 PM
Vmart wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Vmart wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Welpee wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

Do you ever do your own fact checking or do you just buy every talking point that sounds good to you and just roll with it?

The political battle is won or lost based on opinions. Facts are overrated, awkward klunky things that seem to greedy in the way.

We have come to the point where fact checking needs fact checking.

Example?

When people are involved even facts get lost or intentionally lost for the purpose of what they believe.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/28/trump-and-iraq-case-study-whats-wrong-fact-checking

This is what fox concluded I'm sure CNN conclusion was different.

Man, i was actually hoping for a better example.

This one is a lay-up.

Are people trying to exploit what trump said somewhat uncertainly? Yes.

Did he say it? Yes.

Is it fair to derive a particular meaning from his exact words? Yes.

Trump should focus his energy on acknowledging what he said and why he said it, rather than denying it occurred or dismissing its relevance.

The fact checkers are correct. His FIRST known stance on the war was passive support of it.

That there is maybe nuance to this particular fact is also correct.

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy