Who are you voting for?

[mynameisbob84]

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

The more I read/hear about Hillary, the further she falls in my estimation. She's clearly a terrible person. But that said, (and I'm not defending what it appears she has done as far as the above goes, at least not from an ethical standpoint), what is the difference between Hillary exposing her moral compass as being completely broken to further her career as, at that point, a defence lawyer, and Trump doing the same thing to further his own wealth?

 

[Mila_]

The more I read/hear about Hillary, the further she falls in my estimation. She's clearly a terrible person. But that said, (and I'm not defending what it appears she has done as far as the above goes, at least not from an ethical standpoint), what is the difference between Hillary exposing her moral compass as being completely broken to further her career as, at that point, a defence lawyer, and Trump doing the same thing to further his own wealth?

I don't consider their transgressions to be on the same level, but let's humor this for a minute. Let's imagine they both did the exact same things.

One difference would be that Hillary does this from positions of power within the government. She should be a public servant, instead she uses the power of government against the citizens. Trump would have paid for his transgressions out of his own pocket. Whatever wealth he has was gained through productive work and any power he holds is only within his own organization.

This is an important difference. Then there is the problem of saying what you mean. Trump is running on the idea that he is a successful businessman and since he knows the loopholes he can fix them, he even said "not paying taxes would make me smart!". You can disagree with it, but it isn't a two-faced campaign unlike Hillary with her female identity politics.

 

[JoleneBrody]

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

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

While this may be filled with some biased opinions it's still one of the largest easy to navigate sources for the majority of links and videos associated, including the ones people are using to tell me the link I posted is wrong. (You'll find all that same info within that post as well as a bunch of other information that does indeed give a deeper understanding of the story)

Understanding how our legal system works, specifically with judge appointed defense attorneys is a smart idea for most any American and I highly suggest it. It is one of the most valuable rights as a citizen you have but not one you think about until it's the most important thing in your life.
Anywho, she did not choose the case, she basically had no choice as is a common experience for defense attorneys in the U.S. It's bits of misleading verbiage like that (she chose the case) that I have a real problem with.

 

[Mila_]

While this may be filled with some biased opinions it's still one of the largest easy to navigate sources for the majority of links and videos associated, including the ones people are using to tell me the link I posted is wrong. (You'll find all that same info within that post as well as a bunch of other information that does indeed give a deeper understanding of the story)

Understanding how our legal system works, specifically with judge appointed defense attorneys is a smart idea for most any American and I highly suggest it. It is one of the most valuable rights as a citizen you have but not one you think about until it's the most important thing in your life.
Anywho, she did not choose the case, she basically had no choice as is a common experience for defense attorneys in the U.S. It's bits of misleading verbiage like that (she chose the case) that I have a real problem with.

If you had listened to the Hillary Tapes you would know she did choose the case. A judge friend of Hillary's asked her to take the case as a personal favor and so she took it. She did have a choice.

 

[JoleneBrody]

If you had listened to the Hillary Tapes you would know she did choose the case. A judge friend of Hillary's asked her to take the case as a personal favor and so she took it. She did have a choice.

I can understand why you feel this way, because the favor comment leads to assumptions obviously but considering this story has been researched and dug to death with all remaining living parties involved you are choosing to ignore all other facts and info regarding the case and the legal process of appointment, and focus only on the word favor.
She may have taken on the case as a favor as she was recommended to the judge by a friend, but she was still legally appointed by that judge and she still did not really have a choice once recommended and appointed.
I'm going to link to information, this is not really for you because I know unless it serves your purpose you wont agree with the source or information... I'm linking for everyone else that might be interested in learning more about the information out there. I'm adding information to build a larger picture and understanding rather than just repeating the same thing over and over and over... so ya'll can come to your own conclusions with the full picture.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/

I still don't like Hillary, but I don't like her for reasons with a bit more substance.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

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

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

There is word to describe this mythical lawyer that only takes cases of clients that are indisputably innocent. Starving. It's like the camgirl who only accepts privates of guys, who are respectful, generous, good looking, and make no demands, including that the model take off her clothes. While, in theory, Hillary could have turned down the request to defend in practice few lawyers would. Just like most models will take privates, even if they find some of the requests a bit strange.

You and I both know that not every case of rape is actually true, and this especially the case with younger kids. Hillary presented evidence that this kid made stuff up. If this is what happened in this case, neither of us know. But let's be clear as a matter of law her client,Thomas Alfred Taylor, is not a rapist , he pleaded guilty to fondling a child under 14 and he can't be charged with rape in this case.

Now I normally I don't want to compare Trump and Hillary but I can't resist cause the parallels are so close.

Using your standard, guilty until proven innocent, Trump rapes 13 year old girls.
Donald Trump, along with his friend Billionaire Jeffery Epstein a convicted pedophile,partied together a lot. Trump has acknowledged this. Bill Clinton has also partied with Jeffery.

According to the victim who was 13 at the time.

Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,

More here

Now as much as despise Trump, and this sounds completely within character for him, I actually am willing to presume he is innocent until proven guilty of this allegation. So I won't refer to him as a rapist.

Still I don't understand how you can find Hillary, acting well within her legal and ethical duties as lawyer, to have done something so horrible, while being willing to vote for an alleged rapist.

Hillary defended a man who gropes and fondles young woman, I understand why some people find this hypocritical. But Trump brags about grabbing the pussy, of all kinds of woman, I find that a billion times worse.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

If you had listened to the Hillary Tapes you would know she did choose the case. A judge friend of Hillary's asked her to take the case as a personal favor and so she took it. She did have a choice.

Who said she chose the case? Hillary?

PTHTHTHTHTHTHTPPPPBBBB !!!! You can't believe a word that comes out of that woman's mouth.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/09/donald-trump-to-gop-this-means-war.html

I'm not finding this as funny now as I have over the last few months.
It's been great watching the Republican Party and the Evangelicals get their comeuppance.
But they are human. They wandered down a wrong path, which is something all humans do.
I hope they are able to contain this menace they inadvertently unleashed, and I hope the civilized and the sane among them emerge with the credibility they deserve.

 

[Mila_]

There is word to describe this mythical lawyer that only takes cases of clients that are indisputably innocent. Starving. It's like the camgirl who only accepts privates of guys, who are respectful, generous, good looking, and make no demands, including that the model take off her clothes. While, in theory, Hillary could have turned down the request to defend in practice few lawyers would. Just like most models will take privates, even if they find some of the requests a bit strange.

You and I both know that not every case of rape is actually true, and this especially the case with younger kids. Hillary presented evidence that this kid made stuff up. If this is what happened in this case, neither of us know. But let's be clear as a matter of law her client,Thomas Alfred Taylor, is not a rapist , he pleaded guilty to fondling a child under 14 and he can't be charged with rape in this case.

Now I normally I don't want to compare Trump and Hillary but I can't resist cause the parallels are so close.

Using your standard, guilty until proven innocent, Trump rapes 13 year old girls.
Donald Trump, along with his friend Billionaire Jeffery Epstein a convicted pedophile,partied together a lot. Trump has acknowledged this. Bill Clinton has also partied with Jeffery.

According to the victim who was 13 at the time.
More here

Now as much as despise Trump, and this sounds completely within character for him, I actually am willing to presume he is innocent until proven guilty of this allegation. So I won't refer to him as a rapist.

Still I don't understand how you can find Hillary, acting well within her legal and ethical duties as lawyer, to have done something so horrible, while being willing to vote for an alleged rapist.

Hillary defended a man who gropes and fondles young woman, I understand why some people find this hypocritical. But Trump brags about grabbing the pussy, of all kinds of woman, I find that a billion times worse.

Hillary thought he was guilty to the point of laughing about it, and she was the guy's lawyer. The crime lab that analyzed the underwear said the evidence was conclusive. They just mishandled the evidence. It would have been good enough if Hillary hadn't demanded the judge to see the evidence herself before the trial took place and then demanded that the evidence was dismissed for irregularities.

The Trump rape case was introduced in April of this year, a few months after Trump announced his political campaign. It was first introduced in California and it was dismissed by a judge, and then it was reintroduced in New York. I am not saying it is impossible for this to have happened, but considering the events in theory took place in 1994, I find it suspicious that the girl would only come forward now, during this campaign. If she can produce evidence like blood stained underwear and a crime lab says that it the evidence is conclusive, then I will call Trump a rapist. Not until then.

In the case of Bill Clinton.. he is more like Bill Cosby to me. I am not a feminist and I don't tend to believe solo rape victims who sue a very famous person for $100 million bucks. But when the list has 30 names my skepticism starts to crack.

 

[SexySteph]

They just mishandled the evidence. It would have been good enough if Hillary hadn't demanded the judge to see the evidence herself before the trial took place and then demanded that the evidence was dismissed for irregularities.

This is a lawyer's job. What is so hard to understand about this? Was she supposed to not see the evidence herself or not have it thrown out when it was mishanndled? Should accused rapists not be afforded a fair trial?

If someone is not found guilty of a crime they are to be considered innocent. That is how our judicial system works. If you want to say that Hillary defended a rapist (a crime this man was not found guilty of) you have to say that Trump is a rapist as well (he wasn't found guilty of anything but someone said it so...). It's either "innocent till proven guilty" or not. You can't decide to ignore that when it fits your narrative and hold onto it when it doesn't.

Also, just to remind everyone in case we've forgotten, Bill Clinton is not the one running for president.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...s-expert-not-too-late-for-rnc-to-recall-trump

Time for an emergency session of Congress.
Recall them both. Pass a wham-bam thank-you ma'am emergency constitutional amendment that prohibits people named Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump from running for any office in 2016. Let the VP's run this year.

 

[Mila_]

Also, just to remind everyone in case we've forgotten, Bill Clinton is not the one running for president.

Just the woman who has been married to him for for decades, who lied about his affairs to the public and allegedly intimidated/threatened/humilliated at least 2 women who came forward with stories about Bill Clinton sexually attacking them. She did have an active role as the person handling the "bimbo eruptions" war room.

On "innocent until proven guilty" that is for the judicial system. There are times in which people who committed awful crimes are free because the judicial system has to stick to certain procedures, and they get out on a technicality. Everyone knows they are guilty but the system has limits. The limits are there to make sure innocent people dont end up in jail, but once in a w hile a guilty person gets a "get out of jail" card by exploiting those mechanisms.This is one of those cases. Even his own lawyer admitted on an interview with Esquire that she knew he was guilty and the evidence thing was something she used to get him out, so why should we go around pretending like he didnt rape that girl? It is one thing to understand he cant be put in jail and another one to actually think that equates to innocence.

 

[JoleneBrody]

This is a lawyer's job. What is so hard to understand about this? Was she supposed to not see the evidence herself or not have it thrown out when it was mishanndled? Should accused rapists not be afforded a fair trial?

If someone is not found guilty of a crime they are to be considered innocent. That is how our judicial system works. If you want to say that Hillary defended a rapist (a crime this man was not found guilty of) you have to say that Trump is a rapist as well (he wasn't found guilty of anything but someone said it so...). It's either "innocent till proven guilty" or not. You can't decide to ignore that when it fits your narrative and hold onto it when it doesn't.

Also, just to remind everyone in case we've forgotten, Bill Clinton is not the one running for president.

If she had not done many of the things people are mad at her for doing, she could be held accountable to another degree entirely. She had a very important civic duty to uphold as an appointed defense attorney even with her own opinions of her clients guilt and she held to them.

Comparing trumps many accusations of rape and assault and this seems silly though. Hillary has not been accused of raping anyone, Hillary has been accused of being a great defense lawyer in a sadand click bait worthy case... and upholding her oath. Defense lawyers aren't exactly the most liked group of people until you are the one being appointed a public defender.

Lawyers are the devil until you need one.

 

[JoleneBrody]

so why should we go around pretending like he didnt rape that girl?

ummmmm... say what?

 

[JickyJuly]

I think it's fair to judge Hillary by Bill. Our spouses are, unlike most of our family who should not represent us, family we choose for ourselves. If someone wants to judge me over my husband's actions or my reaction to them, I'll take it. I also think it's kind of silly to refer to her work as a lawyer as "just a job". It's the job she chose, and however she handled her cases reflects a part of her. The young girl that she painted as a liar was in a coma after her rape btw and was rendered unable to have children I think I read? We're all judged for our jobs. It's how most people spend a large chunk of their days.

I hate HIllary. I hate Bill. I hate what they did to our country the first go around. Still, I'm not sure how anyone can stand behind Trump/Pence at this point.Hillary is a war monger that has done horrible things, but this last bit of Trump mouth diarrhea kind of proves that he will do and say anything for his ego. It also shows that he sees women as objects. If I'm an object, I'm done paying my damn taxes.

I really, really wanted Trump and HIllary to be equal evils so that I could quietly see her smashed down a bit. But, a man who stands by as someone like Howard Stern calls his daughter "a piece of ass" is not a man who can be trusted with any bit of power. He's so weak that a taste of power will send him into a tailspin of dubious behavior.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Watching the debates live. Many of the situations in Trump's Gish gallop are so complex you have to study them from multiple angles, multiple sources to truly understand they are not black and white.

But once again, up crops one I am familiar with. Using BleachBit, the free Linux version of Ccleaner, to delete emails. Trump describes it as "acid" cleaning, or "bleaching". And he knowingly claims "and it's very expensive".

Regardless of the truth of Hillary's wrongdoing in this email scandal, whether it was a "mistake" or treason or somewhere in between, this I can say for certain...if Trump knows the truth, he is certainly not interested in telling it. He is a bullshitter.

 

[SexySteph]

But once again, up crops one I am familiar with. Using BleachBit, the free Linux version of Ccleaner, to delete emails. Trump describes it as "acid" cleaning, or "bleaching". And he knowingly claims "and it's very expensive".

Wait, is THAT what she did? I was trying to figure out what in the world he was talking about, I was trying to figure out what in the world acid wash could possibly have to with computer data. But she basically just used Ccleaner?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Wait, is THAT what she did? I was trying to figure out what in the world he was talking about, I was trying to figure out what in the world acid wash could possibly have to with computer data. But she basically just used Ccleaner?

Yes. CCleaner for linux. A free program, a one click cleanup deal. I hope that fucker loses 100% of the Linux vote lol.

https://www.bleachbit.org/

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Wait, is THAT what she did? I was trying to figure out what in the world he was talking about, I was trying to figure out what in the world acid wash could possibly have to with computer data. But she basically just used Ccleaner?

Now have some sympathy for us old fogey's. Computers are hard. Tubes and acid washes.

Hillary, of course didn't actually use ccCleaner, her IT guy did and then he went on Reddit asking for advice on even better ways of deleting emails.

The good news is your technology future will be decided by either Hillary who refuses to upgrade from her BlackBerry, or Trump who doesn't use email.

 

[Osmia]

Now have some sympathy for us old fogey's. Computers are hard. Tubes and acid washes.

Hillary, of course didn't actually use ccCleaner, her IT guy did and then he went on Reddit asking for advice on even better ways of deleting emails.

The good news is your technology future will be decided by either Hillary who refuses to upgrade from her BlackBerry, or Trump who doesn't use email.

I always knew Hillary was an IT technophobe, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I read this.

A few choice quotes:

On Dec. 23, 2009, Hillary Clinton, who was then secretary of state, sent an email on her private server to her aide Huma Abedin asking how to switch her home phone to fax mode. In the long chain that followed, Ms. Abedin explained, more than once: “Just pick up phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up.”​

On July 24, 2010, Mrs. Clinton had trouble using her iPad. “I don’t know if I have WIFI,” she wrote in an email to another close aide. “How do I find out?”​

On Oct. 7, 2012, Mrs. Clinton emailed that aide: “Do you know what channel on the TV in DC is the program listing? And, specifically, what channel number is Showtime?” She added, “Because I want to watch ‘Homeland.’”​

Once the server scandal erupted and investigations began, it was tricky for Mrs. Clinton’s aides to explain to outsiders what they were up against. Their private emails said it all. “I talked to Cheryl about this,” Lewis Lukens, a former high-level State Department official, wrote to a colleague who didn’t understand why the secretary of state didn’t check her emails on her office computer. “She says the problem is HRC does not know how to use a computer to do email, only BB.”​

Can you imagine being her tech-support person? Hell, even my non-college educated mother, who was several years older than Hillary, could do her email and online shopping on the hand me down MacBook Pro I gave her.

After Hillary wins the election, maybe she can get Donald Trump to show her how to use teh Twitter.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I always knew Hillary was an IT technophobe, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I read this.

A few choice quotes:

On Dec. 23, 2009, Hillary Clinton, who was then secretary of state, sent an email on her private server to her aide Huma Abedin asking how to switch her home phone to fax mode. In the long chain that followed, Ms. Abedin explained, more than once: “Just pick up phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up.”​

On July 24, 2010, Mrs. Clinton had trouble using her iPad. “I don’t know if I have WIFI,” she wrote in an email to another close aide. “How do I find out?”​

On Oct. 7, 2012, Mrs. Clinton emailed that aide: “Do you know what channel on the TV in DC is the program listing? And, specifically, what channel number is Showtime?” She added, “Because I want to watch ‘Homeland.’”​

Once the server scandal erupted and investigations began, it was tricky for Mrs. Clinton’s aides to explain to outsiders what they were up against. Their private emails said it all. “I talked to Cheryl about this,” Lewis Lukens, a former high-level State Department official, wrote to a colleague who didn’t understand why the secretary of state didn’t check her emails on her office computer. “She says the problem is HRC does not know how to use a computer to do email, only BB.”​

Can you imagine being her tech-support person? Hell, even my non-college educated mother, who was several years older than Hillary, could do her email and online shopping on the hand me down MacBook Pro I gave her.

After Hillary wins the election, maybe she can get Donald Trump to show her how to use teh Twitter.

That's one thing that's been in the back of my mind throughout the whole email saga. This is an old person we are talking about here. How much of this was evil, crooked, lyyyyyyyin' Hillary bringing in the NWO, and how much of this was ignorance?

No offense to old people...

 

[ACFFAN69]

That's one thing that's been in the back of my mind throughout the whole email saga. This is an old person we are talking about here. How much of this was evil, crooked, lyyyyyyyin' Hillary bringing in the NWO, and how much of this was ignorance?

No offense to old people...

"As much as I've been investigated, why would I ever want to do email?" - Hillary Clinton, 2008

But I'm sure the private email server had nothing to do with leaving a paper trail, and really she's just a senile old lady!

 

[Crumb]

"As much as I've been investigated, why would I ever want to do email?" - Hillary Clinton, 2008

But I'm sure the private email server had nothing to do with leaving a paper trail, and really she's just a senile old lady!

I see Stan Lee there.... that's clearly a new preview of some new Marvel movie

 

[ACFFAN69]

Just to add to my above post, since it's too late to edit:
In "the summer of 2014", after noticing there was no email activity to/form official department accounts for Hillary Clinton, investigators for the state department then asked for all of Hillary's personal emails to be retained and began negotiating for them to be released for their Benghazi investigation. It appears this was asked in July 2014 ("last month", in an email from August):

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...W-v-State-Mills-July-email-00687-pg-67-68.pdf
"I wanted to follow up on your request last month about getting hard copies of Secretary Clinton's emails to/from accounts ending in ".gov" for her tenure at the Department."

Coincidentally, on 24 July 2014, Hillary Clinton's email server admin, Paul Combetta, posted on reddit (under the username Stonetears) asking how to permanently delete emails older than 60 days and change the to/from recipients on all emails for a very VIP user. Funny enough, a user on the thread even mentioned that there's a reason Microsoft Exchange Server doesn't allow this, as it would result in major legal issues.

I don't think there's much question that the deleting of the emails wasn't anything but intentional. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty overwhelming.

I see Stan Lee there.... that's clearly a new preview of some new Marvel movie

That guy sure knows how to make a great cameo!

 

[mynameisbob84]

At this point it's essentially a choice between a capital P Politician, with all the moral shortcomings and aversion to the truth that that entails, or a big shouty child who has gone his entire life never being told the word "no" and whose racial and sexual politics will alienate two thirds of America, provided his temperament doesn't lead to retaliatory nukes blowing everybody up first.

 

[zippypinhead]

Anyone get the feeling that the people in the GOP who are now distancing themselves from Trump have been waiting for the opportunity to do so?

 

[Osmia]

Anyone get the feeling that the people in the GOP who are now distancing themselves from Trump have been waiting for the opportunity to do so?

On the contrary, I think these exemplars of political courage have been watching the weather vane to see which way the wind is blowing. There's no doubt in my mind that if Trump still had a good chance of winning, like he did two or three weeks ago, these "defections" would not be happening. These politicians may or may not have secret reservations about Trump's fitness for office, but by outward appearances at least, all they care about is staying on the Trump bandwagon if it looks like he can win and if he has long coattails.

Paul Ryan is trying to thread an ever-smaller needle. Now, he says, he won't campaign for Trump, only down-ballot candidates. However, he hasn't retracted his endorsement. It's ridiculous and morally craven, but politically it makes sense.

The GOP's unresolvable problem is that the group of die-hard Trump supporters is too large a part of the GOP to be ignored, and they're not going to melt away after the election.

I read an interesting observation about Trump's relentless Bill- and Hillary-bashing at last night's debate. A large segment of Trump's supporters have been waiting for decades for someone in a position of power to make these accusations directly to Bill or Hillary, in public, and to do it in a very raw and angry manner that reflects the resentful anger they've felt all this time. Whether that anger is fact-based or is even politically important to the rest of the GOP is beside the point. The GOP created this phenomenon. They've made their bed...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

"As much as I've been investigated, why would I ever want to do email?" - Hillary Clinton, 2008

But I'm sure the private email server had nothing to do with leaving a paper trail, and really she's just a senile old lady!

Just to add to my above post, since it's too late to edit:
In "the summer of 2014", after noticing there was no email activity to/form official department accounts for Hillary Clinton, investigators for the state department then asked for all of Hillary's personal emails to be retained and began negotiating for them to be released for their Benghazi investigation. It appears this was asked in July 2014 ("last month", in an email from August):

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...W-v-State-Mills-July-email-00687-pg-67-68.pdf
"I wanted to follow up on your request last month about getting hard copies of Secretary Clinton's emails to/from accounts ending in ".gov" for her tenure at the Department."

Coincidentally, on 24 July 2014, Hillary Clinton's email server admin, Paul Combetta, posted on reddit (under the username Stonetears) asking how to permanently delete emails older than 60 days and change the to/from recipients on all emails for a very VIP user. Funny enough, a user on the thread even mentioned that there's a reason Microsoft Exchange Server doesn't allow this, as it would result in major legal issues.

I don't think there's much question that the deleting of the emails wasn't anything but intentional. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty overwhelming.

Re-reading the last few posts...to clarify: I don't think there is any question Hillary did something wrong. Everybody does something wrong. I do have questions about what level it rises to. Questions, mind you, not answers.

My gripe with Trump and ilk making fools of Republicans by exaggerating BleachBit is not that I believe that Hillary is completely innocent. I don't believe her decisions are completely explained by her being a technologically illiterate decrepit relic from a bygone era. That may be part of it, certainly not all. And I suspect, not even the bulk of it...

My gripe is this. When Republicans do this, they make the truth even more elusive, harder to find. They discredit themselves, and they obscure real wrongdoings. This whole Benghazi thing has been nothing but a huge distraction imo, designed and executed to encourage anger and ignorance.

I remember buying into their malarkey. Ruby Ridge and Waco, Travelgate and Watergate, Chinese donations and NAFTA, Clinton bodies and rape victims, disarming our military and wag the dog...I bought into many lies. I let the Republicans manipulate me with my own emotions and gullibility. They obscured the real truth about crimes with their vile propaganda.

And what did I get when they took the reins? If I was briefly relieved when Clinton left office, it was soon replaced with a disgust 10 x greater for the W administration's vision of America. And if Obama's administration was a chance for Republicans to humble themselves and regroup, they instead chose to become one of the most Deplorable organizations in recorded history.

"Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception." Rush Limbaugh
FTFY you fat, self-serving, un-American fuck...

The video of Clinton at the party? I understand where she is coming from. She has to navigate an environment where any scrap of potential misdoing is going to be twisted, and distorted, and used against her. I don't blame her for wanting to deprive her political opponents of ammunition. Based on other things I have read, I think part of this email thing was ignorance. I also believe part of it is she is very crooked.

I'm going to avoid the Paul Combetta point. I have way too many questions about that, and I don't feel like getting 5000 words into my thoughts only to find I've got no good answers, and I've wound up pondering whether or not we should have gotten involved in World War I.

But what about the videos of Trump? His womanizing talk? Absolutely disgusting. Appalling. Hearing what he has said, I cannot believe this is what constitutes a scandal. Without incriminating myself in the court of public opinion, I can say I have been party to far more vulgar "locker room" exchanges than what I have heard released on him so far (minus the daughter talk, of course; that's a little creepy for my tastes).

The real scandal here is that people are scrambling right now to dig up even more titillating tidbits on him, instead of embarking on a 24/7 denouncement of the things he has said at his campaign rallies and at debates. If they find a picture of Janet Jackson's nipple, he'll be done for.

Anyone get the feeling that the people in the GOP who are now distancing themselves from Trump have been waiting for the opportunity to do so?

Do you mean like a bunch of politically expedient, morally-and-intellectually-bankrupt whores?


God, wouldn't it be great if Trump accidentally got hit by a bus, which knocked him off a cliff, and he died from a heart attack from banging his head so much on the way down, and he fell in the ocean and a shark ate him, and Colin Powell stepped up to replace him?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I remember buying into their malarkey. Ruby Ridge and Waco, Travelgate and Watergate,

Error. Should read Whitewater.

 

[Mila_]

On the contrary, I think these exemplars of political courage have been watching the weather vane to see which way the wind is blowing. There's no doubt in my mind that if Trump still had a good chance of winning, like he did two or three weeks ago, these "defections" would not be happening. These politicians may or may not have secret reservations about Trump's fitness for office, but by outward appearances at least, all they care about is staying on the Trump bandwagon if it looks like he can win and if he has long coattails.

Paul Ryan is trying to thread an ever-smaller needle. Now, he says, he won't campaign for Trump, only down-ballot candidates. However, he hasn't retracted his endorsement. It's ridiculous and morally craven, but politically it makes sense.

The GOP's unresolvable problem is that the group of die-hard Trump supporters is too large a part of the GOP to be ignored, and they're not going to melt away after the election.

I read an interesting observation about Trump's relentless Bill- and Hillary-bashing at last night's debate. A large segment of Trump's supporters have been waiting for decades for someone in a position of power to make these accusations directly to Bill or Hillary, in public, and to do it in a very raw and angry manner that reflects the resentful anger they've felt all this time. Whether that anger is fact-based or is even politically important to the rest of the GOP is beside the point. The GOP created this phenomenon. They've made their bed...

Here is why the republican party is divided:

The republican establishment has only 1 job: to show up and lose. They get paid handsomely for it and have perfected it for decades. They show up and lose physically by sending weak candidates to the elections and they show up and lose figuratively because when they do hold power they hand it over to the left and betray the trust of their voters, they also show up and lose ideologically every time they apologize to the left for deviating from their moral code, a moral code that means nothing to the republican base. They call them cuckservatives because of it. Paul Ryan is a pussy-whipped cuckservative who has wasted every opportunity as the republican speaker of a republican House. He is despised in the section that matters within the GOP. The last time he showed his face publicly he was shouted down from the podium with the words "SHAME ON YOU".

So there is a pretty large section of the GOP that never shows up to vote. When someone inspires them and they finally do show up, the media is shocked and calls them "Reagan democrats". I guess they are in a way, because by not showing up to vote, they hand the elections to the democratic candidates. But why show up to vote when you know beforehand that if your candidate wins, he will lose anyway because he is being paid to do so? This section will show up to vote for Trump. Because Trump cannot be controlled by the donors and the establishment, he does not recoil, does not apologize, is galvanizing the young republican vote, and there is trust that he will not be just another cuckservative. This is why they will vote him and this is why the establishment is distancing themselves from Trump since the day he announced his campaign. The establishment doesn't like an outsider to shake up things, they have a cushy job where all they have to do is lose. Who wants to give up that sweet, sweet spot? If Trump wins the donors will find other strategies and things could change. Who wants their donations put in peril?

Now, on the "you can grab them by the pussy" video, I give 0 fucks. And I am surprised this board cares. That video was released to isolate Trump from a wide section of the republican constituency: religious folk. But we are camgirls, we trade in male sexuality, we know how guys are in private, well, guys with a healthy testosterone level, not the feminist manlets in Academia:



But men will say shit like this to one another and it is meaningless, they were just fucking around. Pretending like this is some sort of huge revelation about Trump's character is something I would expect from a Pastor in the Bible Belt but not from us.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/donald-trump-is-americas-enemy-w444092
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

Wow. Just wow.