It is. But you see, the place is not an indian restaurants. It is turkish people trying to imitate italian, german, american, indian and mexican food.
They are not bad, but the names of those things are often purely imaginational and ripped off from other restaurant's.
I will still call it chai masala because i don't know jackshit about actual indian naming of things.
And no, my saste in things is great. Absolutely great. Everybody knows it. Believe me.
Several sources say that Hillary won, and that Trump supporters were just being major trolls because they realized their candidate is a weak piece of shit.
That's true. it is the same as with sanders supporters back then. if you look into polls from that time, sanders won almost all of them. Because his supporters actually cared that he was ahead in those, while clinton suppoerters didnt.
The focus group tests which are somewhat reliable say clinton won (they tested in small samples consisting out of dems and reps).
It was also never about the trump supporters in the first place. Someone who thinks obama is a islamist will not be swayed.
But someone not really interested in the elction so far who just tuned in his TV is likely to see trump as the clown he is.
Fivethirtyeight generally does good with numbers and this does not show clinton winning comfortably. She has only a marginal advantage, enough to be considered tied. It'd be good if the debate actually swings voters but that's not generally the case. Hillary needs to step up her game.
I just hope that Hillary actually learns from her mistakes from this debate. She can't call Trump a "racist" or any other names on the debate, especially when he hasn't even called her "Crooked Hillary". Although I'm shocked that Trump has gained momentum on the polls after the debate (he was strong on certain points; the rest, might as well be a dog chasing after its own tail).
I've also check out Politifact, the only thing that Trump was right about was how Hillary called the TPP a "Gold-standard". Outside of that, the rest of his speech was either barely true (like China using the US as a piggybank) , or just complete bullshit (like his "opposition" of the Iraq War and even his tweet about Global Warming being a hoax).
It is. But you see, the place is not an indian restaurants. It is turkish people trying to imitate italian, german, american, indian and mexican food.
They are not bad, but the names of those things are often purely imaginational and ripped off from other restaurant's.
I will still call it chai masala because i don't know jackshit about actual indian naming of things.
And no, my saste in things is great. Absolutely great. Everybody knows it. Believe me.
That's true. it is the same as with sanders supporters back then. if you look into polls from that time, sanders won almost all of them. Because his supporters actually cared that he was ahead in those, while clinton suppoerters didnt.
The focus group tests which are somewhat reliable say clinton won (they tested in small samples consisting out of dems and reps).
It was also never about the trump supporters in the first place. Someone who thinks obama is a islamist will not be swayed.
But someone not really interested in the elction so far who just tuned in his TV is likely to see trump as the clown he is.
Oh I see. Probably better than the authentic shit.
Chai masala = tea spiced or something.
kek
Well, I see Hillary supporters as not being lying pieces of shit more than them not caring. Or maybe few truly cared.
It is about Trump supporters. They're batshit crazy, and like you said won't be swayed. Though, I'm sure very few undecided decided to support Hillary, but I see many more being against her due to how untrustworthy she is/seems.
I just hope that Hillary actually learns from her mistakes from this debate. She can't call Trump a "racist" or any other names on the debate, especially when he hasn't even called her "Crooked Hillary". Although I'm shocked that Trump has gained momentum on the polls after the debate (he was strong on certain points; the rest, might as well be a dog chasing after its own tail).
I've also check out Politifact, the only thing that Trump was right about was how Hillary called the TPP a "Gold-standard". Outside of that, the rest of his speech was either barely true (like China using the US as a piggybank) , or just complete bullshit (like his "opposition" of the Iraq War and even his tweet about Global Warming being a hoax).
Well, to be fair most of what is brought up against hillary is about her emails, bhengazi and the foundation. The emails, which are nowhere near as big a deal it is made out to be. Bhengazi, which is not even 0.000000001% of a thing. And the foundation, which as john oliver pointed out, is not THAT bad of a situation (and unlike trump's lies everyone else has reported 89% of its donations are actually used for charity which seems to be a respectable number). And then there is the stuff which clearly trump is making up as he goes.... In the end, most of the stuff brought up against her has remarkably little ground to stand on assuming it isn't straight up fiction.
I mean, maybe it sits fine with you, but there's more questions for me in regards to her. I love Last Week Tonight, but the show is hardly unbiased. I didn't vote for her in the primary obviously, and I'm not going to vote for her in the general either. I'm not really sure what she could say during debates to change that. She's not my candidate, and Trump existing isn't enough for me to suddenly think differently of her. The electoral college votes from my state aren't at all in danger of going to Trump anyway.
I think it was at least equal parts him owning himself HARD, and Hillary giving an average performance. I'm not sure how much credit someone should get for baiting freaking Donald Trump into stepping in dogshit. He does it voluntarily. The first 15-30 minutes or so went fine for him, and then he just imploded.
True, Trump kept saying stupid things and admitted stuff like not paying any taxes and supporting Stop-And-Frisk. Hillary didn't help him with her comments though, like saying she actually prepared to become a president.
Fivethirtyeight generally does an excellent job at crunching numbers, as a source they are very reliable. What metapoll specifically are you looking at?
I mean, maybe it sits fine with you, but there's more questions for me in regards to her. I love Last Week Tonight, but the show is hardly unbiased. I didn't vote for her in the primary obviously, and I'm not going to vote for her in the general either. I'm not really sure what she could say during debates to change that. She's not my candidate, and Trump existing isn't enough for me to suddenly think differently of her. The electoral college votes from my state aren't at all in danger of going to Trump anyway.
Well, clearly the show i favors clinton but where exactly does bias factor into this? Was anything of what was reported inaccurate regarding either candidate? At best there could be disagreement regarding how big a deal something is or isn't however the actual facts presented seem accurate.
Well, I don't get to vote at the elections but for the the prospect of that lunatic making calls is kinda terrifying. Just look at the way the guy speaks of "deals". The guy is gonna approach foreign policy not with an idea of making the world a better place or even with basic good will. The guy is gonna approach foreign nations, allies or enemies, and specifically try to squeeze them as hard as he plausibly can under the excuse of "america first". His proposals regarding nato are basically to turn the US military, by far the strongest military in the history of the world, into the single largest mercenary force in history. I mean, the guy wants to literally send the bill to nato allies... What if russia pays more than nato allies? Trump clearly is more than willing to spread his legs for putin as it is. Now, whether trump can do those things as president is another matter but that he would even propose this ridiculous things is, well, worrying. Hillary is by no means a perfect candidate and there are legitimate things to question regarding her and her policy. But in no form or context hillary is anything even remotely near the cartoon republicans have made her out to be. None of the things which actually make sense to question about her even vaguely relate to her emails, bhengazi, whitewater or whatever other ridiculous thing which has been blown out of proportion. At least none of the things which have been reported regarding the foundation are anywhere as big a big deal as made out to be. The worst I have seen so far at the most looks fishy but doesn't really prove anything either. In turn, trump is every single bit the racist xenophobic ignorant cartoon monster he presents himself as. The two are in no form or context comparable. And one of them is going to be president (and one of them has a 59 point lead on while male uneducated voters).
Well, she's gonna have to in order to get more voters. She barely has any trust from a lot of citizens, especially from those that are settling for her. Hillary needs to lock in those votes as well. Winning debates isn't enough, Trump has too much steam and idiotic supporters that will continue to support him. Hillary is not in a good place, especially against a dunce like Trump.
That seems a bit circular to me. It's a bad environment because people have guns. And you can't take away guns because it's a bad environment. Any meaningful measure of gun control has to start taking guns from somewhere. Otherwise things will literally never change and the US will maintain it's shameful levels of gun violence (by first world country standards of course).
I am not so sure the alcohol ban is that relevant either. The thing about alcohol is that it's easy to make. You could learn how to make alcohol on youtube in less than 10 minutes and get the ingredients in as much time as it takes you to go to the supermarket. Back in the day people didn't have youtube videos but making alcohol was about as easy to make. In turn you probably can't mass produce guns by merely watching youtube videos. Maybe 3d printers will eventually change that but that is hardly a US issue but rather a world wide issue. All the more reason to nudge people and culture away from guns.
I think Milly is onto something when it comes to the theory of prohibition and the reality of it.
And sure, we can look at alcohol being easy as hell to make at home compared to machining a firearm, but there's still a difference here. Alcohol is a consumable that demands more production. The comparison of alcohol and ammunition would make more sense. The fact is, there are more guns in the US than there are citizens living here and they don't disappear when you use them once.
On top of this, there are figures that exist that suggest that at most 5-10% of all violent crime is committed with guns that were legally purchased/owned. Of course, there is the caveat that this doesn't account for firearms that investigators never get any information about. But that being said, the black market already exists for firearms, placing more restrictions on legally purchased firearms isn't going to bring that figure down. That doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to own bazookas and miniguns...but yeah, this issue isn't really as easy as saying "no more guns" (for one, it would never happen that way). The issue is not having proper registration laws and sensible regulation. But even when you look into something as simple as an "assault weapon" ban, you get into a whole mess about what the term even means, and how often they're even used criminally as well.
Clinton is an interventionist, hands down, but that is something else than warmongering in my book.
She for example was one part of bill's decision to intervene in yugoslawia, and that was a pretty good intervention in my book and not warmongering.
Well, you brought up people calling her a warmonger, which I took as you being hyperbolic meaning interventionist. I don't know if I've seen people calling her a warmonger in earnest. And certainly not the run-of-the-mill Neocons that run the GOP, they love that shit.
Aside from that: Clinton was always a supporter of homosexual rights. THe thing which is held against her is that she embraced homosexual marriage very late. But that is ignoring that she was for a 'union' which is legally equivalent to marriage but just not called that way.
And she started to be for that when it was still a far left position to have.
I really cannot see that as homophobe no matter how I look at it.
Yes, because it was politically convenient for her to do so when she did it. This is the most common criticism made of her. Regardless of what she may or may not have believed personally, she chose not to support marriage equality for a reason.
And "unions" are not the same. Equality isn't getting called something other than a married couple because the old couple down the street might have their jimmies rustled by a husband having a husband (and even children, god forbid!).
I personally wasn't suggesting that she is homophobic, but she sided with homophobic people on that issue and for apparently the same reasons. There really isn't that much nuance to this issue for me honestly.
Then there is the simple reality that obama is a male and hillary female.People will react unfortunately different to her. And finally there is the simple reality that hillary herself is held at a different standard than other people, it's the only reason trump is a thing at all considering he says stuff that should make him unelectable several times a day....
Other than that everything else was expected, Clinton being full of crap and the moderator being laughably biased. Like 7 times more follow up questions and interruptions for Trump compared to Clinton, and his questions choice.
It isn't like he was solely responsible for the questions. The moderator was hardly biased. If anything, he wasn't forceful enough with telling him to stfu when it wasn't his time to speak. Trump was constantly on the mic while Clinton was talking, never displaying even a modicum amount of respect for the format. Followup questions tend to happen when the person is guilty of blabbering out as much specious and vacuous shit as Trump does, of course a moderator will inquire for clarification.
Well, I don't get to vote at the elections but for the the prospect of that lunatic making calls is kinda terrifying. Just look at the way the guy speaks of "deals". The guy is gonna approach foreign policy not with an idea of making the world a better place or even with basic good will. The guy is gonna approach foreign nations, allies or enemies, and specifically try to squeeze them as hard as he plausibly can under the excuse of "america first". His proposals regarding nato are basically to turn the US military, by far the strongest military in the history of the world, into the single largest mercenary force in history. I mean, the guy wants to literally send the bill to nato allies... What if russia pays more than nato allies? Trump clearly is more than willing to spread his legs for putin as it is. Now, whether trump can do those things as president is another matter but that he would even propose this ridiculous things is, well, worrying. Hillary is by no means a perfect candidate and there are legitimate things to question regarding her and her policy. But in no form or context hillary is anything even remotely near the cartoon republicans have made her out to be. None of the things which actually make sense to question about her even vaguely relate to her emails, bhengazi, whitewater or whatever other ridiculous thing which has been blown out of proportion. At least none of the things which have been reported regarding the foundation are anywhere as big a big deal as made out to be. The worst I have seen so far at the most looks fishy but doesn't really prove anything either. In turn, trump is every single bit the racist xenophobic ignorant cartoon monster he presents himself as. The two are in no form or context comparable. And one of them is going to be president (and one of them has a 59 point lead on while male uneducated voters).
Well, you're not going to get me agreeing with Trump when it comes to policy, because he has none. It's not even about who is more "presidential" either (whatever the fuck that means). But I don't think that means I have to support her candidacy by default either. Like I've said before, it isn't a binary choice, as much as the two parties want you to think it is. Unfortunately, the average voter doesn't give much thought to it. They make up their minds based on how they look, or how they sound, or what type of reproductive organs they have, or if they're lucky, their opinion on a single, relatively inconsequential issue.
I mean, I guess I'm thankful I have the privilege of not having to make this choice because Maryland isn't going to go to Trump. As much as people say that every vote matters, when it comes to the electoral college, this isn't really universally the case.
I think Milly is onto something when it comes to the theory of prohibition and the reality of it.
And sure, we can look at alcohol being easy as hell to make at home compared to machining a firearm, but there's still a difference here. Alcohol is a consumable that demands more production. The comparison of alcohol and ammunition would make more sense. The fact is, there are more guns in the US than there are citizens living here and they don't disappear when you use them once.
On top of this, there are figures that exist that suggest that at most 5-10% of all violent crime is committed with guns that were legally purchased/owned. Of course, there is the caveat that this doesn't account for firearms that investigators never get any information about. But that being said, the black market already exists for firearms, placing more restrictions on legally purchased firearms isn't going to bring that figure down. That doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to own bazookas and miniguns...but yeah, this issue isn't really as easy as saying "no more guns" (for one, it would never happen that way). The issue is not having proper registration laws and sensible regulation. But even when you look into something as simple as an "assault weapon" ban, you get into a whole mess about what the term even means, and how often they're even used criminally as well.
Someone like Elizabeth Warren doesn't have this issue, so why does Clinton apparently have it?
Good point, the whole thing would probably come down to munitions. I doubt those are very easy to make though they are probably easier to smuggle.
I mean, gun control actually is about saying in no uncertain terms "no more guns" and it is actually about getting rid of the second amendment. Just look at what other countries have done here. England makes it pretty hard to get guns, if you can get one at all. And even the police does not have guns. Take japan. You can technically own a gun for hunting but even then you have to regularly prove your sanity. Take australia, the government literally went for everyones guns. Now, obviously this is not possible at the US at the moment (I still remember a class I took when in my freshman year and I was the only one that never raised his hand when the teacher asked who had fired a gun) but I don't think it is accurate to say this will never happen. In the past I have given sources that actually make the point that as it is most folk at the US actually want more gun control. It's only the republican party that does actively fights this even though republicans actually want at least background checks. And that is a start at least. It's a shame congress has blocked any gun violence research, if reliable data existed on US specific problems it would be easier to have a more informed opinion and not just just at what other countries do....
Well, I am not as familiar with elizabeth warren as with clinton but maybe she simply is funnier than clinton? I don't really have enough information on her to make an informed opinion. But regardless of that I do think it is easy to make a case that clinton is held at a different standard than everyone else and that republicans have succesfully turned her into a cartoon villain through their smear campaigns.
Well, you're not going to get me agreeing with Trump when it comes to policy, because he has none. It's not even about who is more "presidential" either (whatever the fuck that means). But I don't think that means I have to support her candidacy by default either. Like I've said before, it isn't a binary choice, as much as the two parties want you to think it is. Unfortunately, the average voter doesn't give much thought to it. They make up their minds based on how they look, or how they sound, or what type of reproductive organs they have, or if they're lucky, their opinion on a single, relatively inconsequential issue.
I mean, I guess I'm thankful I have the privilege of not having to make this choice because Maryland isn't going to go to Trump. As much as people say that every vote matters, when it comes to the electoral college, this isn't really universally the case.
What exactly do you mean when you say it isn't a binary choice? I mean, I get that technically there are 5 choices which are donald trump, hillary clinton, gary johnson (personally I would vote trump before libertarian though, what a fucking stupid party), jill stein and your favorite spot at your couch. But regardless of how annoying or how bad the candidate are it a fact that the next president is going to be either trump or hillary and that Jill and Gary have no more and no less than 0% chance of winning. In that regard, at least to me this seems pretty binary.
Ah, that explains it. Privilege is the problem as usual.
Gun control isn't necessarily about saying no more guns, it's about making it harder for people, if not bad people, to get guns. This is the first step, although guns can still be bought illegally. I'm pretty sure tons of people own at least one gun illegally/without a license. If we're to do something about this, the first step is to find a way to stop people from selling or buying guns illegally or through the black market.
@ the underlined: Oh, you are one of those people.
Short version of the tape: she helped plea down the man's sentence and laughed about the creditability of the polygraph her defendant took, as well as laughing about how evidence was "misplaced" and all that was left was not acceptable to be tested.
"Of course, [Taylor] denied [raping her]. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed - which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs." Clinton said, laughing
Unless she very well knew the man was lying, why else laugh about its creditability? She even laughed about getting a forensics expert to dismiss the admissibility of evidence (bloody underwear) as the pieces that were to be tested got "misplaced" in the crime lab—which to this day she acknowledges—and all they had left was remnants that could not be admissible (which she laughed about too) in court. She even lied about taking the case. First she claimed she didn't have a choice but audio evidence heavily suggests she did it as a personal favor (in her own words).
You can find interviews from 2014 where she discusses the case again, and says it is "sad" because they "did have evidence but it got misplaced". She knew very well the man lied. So much for being an advocate of women.
Gun control isn't necessarily about saying no more guns, it's about making it harder for people, if not bad people, to get guns. This is the first step, although guns can still be bought illegally. I'm pretty sure tons of people own at least one gun illegally/without a license. If we're to do something about this, the first step is to find a way to stop people from selling or buying guns illegally or through the black market.
You can do "gun control" without saying no more guns. However my point in this case is that it wouldn't really do much. Most of the cases of gun control that have worked, as far as I can tell anyways, specifically involve taking hard stances against guns being a thing at all. And if you make it harder for people in general to get guns then you are basically saying no more guns. The sad reality is that the problem here are ultimately guns themselves. Just look at what little stats there are. Merely having a gun is a strong indicator of likelihood of being involved in gun violence. And where do you suppose black market guns come from?
Does anyone have a good link to watch the debate? I was without power for nearly two days so I missed it (though I hear it was funny?).
@ the underlined: Oh, you are one of those people.
Short version of the tape: she helped plea down the man's sentence and laughed about the creditability of the polygraph her defendant took, as well as laughing about how evidence was "misplaced" and all that was left was not acceptable to be tested.
Unless she very well knew the man was lying, why else laugh about its creditability? She even laughed about getting a forensics expert to dismiss the admissibility of evidence (bloody underwear) as the pieces that were to be tested got "misplaced" in the crime lab—which to this day she acknowledges—and all they had left was remnants that could not be admissible (which she laughed about too) in court. She even lied about taking the case. First she claimed she didn't have a choice but audio evidence heavily suggests she did it as a personal favor (in her own words).
You can find interviews from 2014 where she discusses the case again, and says it is "sad" because they "did have evidence but it got misplaced". She knew very well the man lied. So much for being an advocate of women.
I haven't looked into the rest of the case but the fact of the matter is that polygraphs don't work and they by no means should have a place as evidence in any court of law.
I heard the video but I don't really see a problem there... Going by what she said at least, it sounds like she did her job exactly as any lawyer is supposed to do it. What did I miss?
I haven't looked into the rest of the case but the fact of the matter is that polygraphs don't work and they by no means should have a place as evidence in any court of law.
I heard the video but I don't really see a problem there... Going by what she said at least, it sounds like she did her job exactly as any lawyer is supposed to do it. What did I miss?
I doubt the polygraph too, but that isn't why I brought this up. I brought it up because it shines light on important parts of her character.
The overall creditability of a polygraph isn't what she is laughing at. If her stance was that they were useless or otherwise unhelpful, she wouldn't have suggested he take it, get surprised he passed it and then decide she couldn't trust them. In that moment of the audio she heavily suggests the fact that he passed it is what destroyed her faith in it because she knew he was lying (she acknowledges the evidence that would have confirmed it too). She never words herself or suggests that she didn't believe in the overall creditability of a polygraph and there is no audio in the video that would suggest it either.
The way she worded herself enforces that too:
He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter].
"destroyed my faith in polygraphs" implies she believed in their usage prior to this case. She's laughing because she knew he was lying and yet could pass the test.
Oh, she did her job just right. That isn't the discussion here. The problem is that she laughed while explaining how a child rapist got off his punishment and lied continuously about the case overall despite audio disagreeing with her current tales.
EDIT
While I'm discussing her character flaws (this doesn't go with the above but is separate): she thinks everyone is a "little racist" (and plans to do "something" about it) and so much more, and yet people ignore it but gladly go after Republicans for saying crazy or stupid crap. And now apparently she believes women should be paid equal for less or inferior work.
"This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and somebody who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men," Clinton
I doubt the polygraph too, but that isn't why I brought this up. I brought it up because it shines light on important parts of her character.
The overall creditability of a polygraph isn't what she is laughing at. If her stance was that they were useless or otherwise unhelpful, she wouldn't have suggested he take it, get surprised he passed it and then decide she couldn't trust them. In that moment of the audio she heavily suggests the fact that he passed it is what destroyed her faith in it because she knew he was lying (she acknowledges the evidence that would have confirmed it too). She never words herself or suggests that she didn't believe in the overall creditability of a polygraph and there is no audio in the video that would suggest it either.
The way she worded herself enforces that too:
"destroyed my faith in polygraphs" implies she believed in their usage prior to this case. She's laughing because she knew he was lying and yet could pass the test.
Oh, she did her job just right. That isn't the discussion here. The problem is that she laughed while explaining how a child rapist got off his punishment and lied continuously about the case overall despite audio disagreeing with her current tales.
So....? It's not like she was laughing maniacally that she got the guy free after playing the law. She laughed because the polygraph is ineffective. That seems completely reasonable. What lies about the case are you talking about? I haven't heard any of this.
So....? It's not like she was laughing maniacally that she got the guy free after playing the law. She laughed because the polygraph is ineffective. That seems completely reasonable. What lies about the case are you talking about? I haven't heard any of this.
That is why she's laughing though, because she got a man she knew to be a rapist off by using a polygraph and getting the evidence inadmissible because only a small sample of blood and semen remained of the conveniently misplaced/thrown away underwear. She did her job effectively, but it is disgusting and entirely distasteful (and dishonest) that she would go onto an interview and laugh about how she managed to pull it off.
If she was laughing about the overall ineffectiveness of a polygraph it wouldn't be worth discussing, but she wasn't, and if she were she wouldn't have said what she said or laughed when she did. She specifically states his passing of the test broke her faith in them, heavily suggesting that she knew he was lying and beat the "system" so to say in which convinced her the things didn't work.
The other things she lied about? Oh, I mentioned it at the end of that post (it might have been a quick edit). It was about her relation to the case overall. She claimed that she was forced into the position numerous times (even to this day) and that she petitioned the judge to let her off (in which the judge apparently lied about too) many times, but the audio tape reveals she had done it as a personal favor. She also claimed within court she never said the victim (the girl) had been known to seek out older men for sex (which was a lie itself) and was just craving attention when she actually did say such things.
So the problem isn't that she took the defendant's case or that she did her job in getting his sentence practically removed. I brought it up because she sits through an interview laughing about her experiences helping a child rapist get a two month slap on the wrist while today spouting that she's "so for women" while a twelve year old girl had to accept her rapist was free to walk and she scarred for the rest of her life. It is a disgusting and should be considered/discussed when voting for her or supporting her just like all the stupid/horrible things Trump said or did should be considered or discussed.
EDIT
Ugh. The forum keeps posting my posts if I press "enter" to skip a line.
That is why she's laughing though, because she got a man she knew to be a rapist off by using a polygraph and getting the evidence inadmissible because only a small sample of blood and semen remained of the conveniently misplaced/thrown away underwear. She did her job effectively, but it is disgusting and entirely distasteful (and dishonest) that she would go onto an interview and laugh about how she managed to pull it off.
If she was laughing about the overall ineffectiveness of a polygraph it wouldn't be worth discussing, but she wasn't, and if she were she wouldn't have said what she said or laughed when she did. She specifically states his passing of the test broke her faith in them, heavily suggesting that she knew he was lying and beat the "system" so to say.
The other things she lied about? Oh, I mentioned it at the end of that post (it might have been a quick edit). It was about her relation to the case overall. She claimed that she was forced into the position numerous times (even to this day) and that she petitioned the judge to let her off (in which the judge apparently lied about too) many times, but the audio tape reveals she had done it as a personal favor. She also claimed within court she never said the victim (the girl) had been known to seek out older men for sex (which was a lie itself) and was just craving attention when she actually did say such things.
So the problem isn't that she took the defendant's case or that she did her job in getting his sentence practically removed. I brought it up because she sits through an interview laughing about her experiences helping a child rapist get a two month slap on the wrist while today spouting that she's "so for women" while a twelve year old girl had to accept. It is a disgusting and should be considered/discussed when voting for her or supporting her just like all the stupid/horrible things Trump said or did should be considered or discussed.
I didn't get the impression that she knew the polygraph was going to fail though. At the very least the audio you provided did not suggest that. If anything it seems like she did not expect him to pass the polygraph test at all (hence her loss of faith in them). And hearing her testimony at least, it does seem like the evidence was legitimately inadmissible.
And according to this it does not seem like clinton could get out of this. And even then, I don't see what the problem would be if she had volunteered....
I didn't get the impression that she knew the polygraph was going to fail though. At the very least the audio you provided did not suggest that. If anything it seems like she did not expect him to pass the polygraph test at all (hence her loss of faith in them). And hearing her testimony at least, it does seem like the evidence was legitimately inadmissible.
And according to this it does not seem like clinton could get out of this. And even then, I don't see what the problem would be if she had volunteered....
Yes, she didn't expect him to pass but he did, in which she gladly accepts (again, it isn't about her defending him itself) and then laughs about how she could use it despite knowing it doesn't work (which also implies she knew he had in fact raped the girl or otherwise she had no reason to suspect it failed).
And yes, by the law the evidence that remained was legitimately inadmissible, I'm not arguing about that. To laugh over how she could get an expert to practically throw the remnants away because somehow the rest of it disappeared of what would have proven the man's absolute guilt is disgusting (as today she calls it "sad"). Her reactions, her words, her laughter—all of it is what I am talking about. And that's what my original comment brought it up for. Her horrible character flaws that are ignored by so many yet those same people will gladly talk their tongues out of their heads concerning the flaws of Trump/any other Republican.
The information in your link cannot be considered truth though, not with just her words. She only has her recent word that she was forced to defend him and audio which does not, in anyway, suggest it was forced upon her but instead points out that she was accepting it as a personal favor. And again, it isn't about her defending him but her lying about all of this stuff and laughing about it and saying she's pro-woman today or that she never said or did so and so.
