• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Presidential Debate #1 |Hofstra University| PRESS X TO SEAN

Who won the debate?

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xandaca

Member
Zeeman said:
I actually had to look up Kathy Shelton, but this is what you think he should have hung his hat on? http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
Click to expand...

Clinton joking about Taylor being guilty is on tape. Whether or not she can be heard laughing is pretty incidental. Reportedly also on tape is that while she didn't volunteer for the case, she took it as a favour to the prosecutor.

Not mentioned in the Snopes piece is that the psychologist who described the girl as a fantasist (and that young women are prone to exaggating early sexual experiences - a statement which isn't a great indicator of credibility) was appointed by Taylor (defendant) and Clinton, whom Shelton has said put her through hell. Also not mentioned: the evidence Clinton presented to get a renowned blood expert onside was incomplete, and his conclusion, that there was not enough blood to test (because most of the stained material had been cut away) was used by Clinton to show she had an expert on her side when she went for the plea bargain. Shelton's mother took it to protect her daughter from the tactics Clinton used, which would shortly thereafter be made illegal under Rape Shield laws.

At the very least, listen to the recordings and read the interviews with the victim at the Daily Beast and the Mail - linked right at the very bottom of the Snopes article. Those are the words of a woman who was the victim of, at the very least, sexual assault at age 12, who states that Clinton put her through extended hell.

Maybe Clinton was just following orders and had to take the case - contentious - and therefore did indeed have to defend him to the best of her ability. Whether she had to aggressively retraumstise the victim (as per the victim), mislead an expert into supporting her, and maybe have a chuckle about her client's guilt afterwards, I'll leave up to you. I personally choose to listen to the victim. One way or the other, if this were a Republican or a male politician, I think we all know Clinton supporters would be 100% supporting the victim rather than hunting for loopholes to erase her experiences.

(If there are typos and whatnot in this post, it's because I'm writing on my phone, which is being extremely erratic.)
 
B

BSsBrolly

Banned
xandaca said:
Clinton joking about Taylor being guilty is on tape. Whether or not she can be heard laughing is pretty incidental. Reportedly also on tape is that while she didn't volunteer for the case, she took it as a favour to the prosecutor.

Not mentioned in the Snopes piece is that the psychologist who described the girl as a fantasist (and that young women are prone to exaggating early sexual experiences - a statement which isn't a great indicator of credibility) was appointed by Taylor (defendant) and Clinton, whom Shelton has said put her through hell. Also not mentioned: the evidence Clinton presented to get a renowned blood expert onside was incomplete, and his conclusion, that there was not enough blood to test (because most of the stained material had been cut away) was used by Clinton to show she had an expert on her side when she went for the plea bargain. Shelton's mother took it to protect her daughter from the tactics Clinton used, which would shortly thereafter be made illegal under Rape Shield laws.

At the very least, listen to the recordings and read the interviews with the victim at the Daily Beast and the Mail - linked right at the very bottom of the Snopes article. Those are the words of a woman who was the victim of, at the very least, sexual assault at age 12, who states that Clinton put her through extended hell.

Maybe Clinton was just following orders and had to take the case - contentious - and therefore did indeed have to defend him to the best of her ability. Whether she had to aggressively retraumstise the victim (as per the victim), mislead an expert into supporting her, and maybe have a chuckle about her client's guilt afterwards, I'll leave up to you. I personally choose to listen to the victim. One way or the other, if this were a Republican or a male politician, I think we all know Clinton supporters would be 100% supporting the victim rather than hunting for loopholes to erase her experiences.

(If there are typos and whatnot in this post, it's because I'm writing on my phone, which is being extremely erratic.)
Click to expand...

*yawn*

Unlike the other bullshit conspiracies, you can actually listen to the tape yourself. Surprise! It's fucking nothing.
 
X

xandaca

Member
BSsBrolly said:
*yawn*

Unlike the other bullshit conspiracies, you can actually listen to the tape yourself. Surprise! It's fucking nothing.
Click to expand...

You heard it here first, folks.

BBsBrolly says rape victim's account of her trauma is a 'bullshit conspiracy'. Such feminism.

Edit: Also worth pointing out that the purpose of the Snopes piece is to point out the inaccuracies in the meme at the top of the article, of which there are undeniably a few. It is not evaluating whether the overall reporting of the case, most of which is based on official record or interviews with the victim, and Clinton's conduct is accurate - just that the meme/image in question contains statements which are not.
 
Z

Zeeman

Member
xandaca said:
Clinton joking about Taylor being guilty is on tape. Whether or not she can be heard laughing is pretty incidental. Reportedly also on tape is that while she didn't volunteer for the case, she took it as a favour to the prosecutor.

Not mentioned in the Snopes piece is that the psychologist who described the girl as a fantasist (and that young women are prone to exaggating early sexual experiences - a statement which isn't a great indicator of credibility) was appointed by Taylor (defendant) and Clinton, whom Shelton has said put her through hell. Also not mentioned: the evidence Clinton presented to get a renowned blood expert onside was incomplete, and his conclusion, that there was not enough blood to test (because most of the stained material had been cut away) was used by Clinton to show she had an expert on her side when she went for the plea bargain. Shelton's mother took it to protect her daughter from the tactics Clinton used, which would shortly thereafter be made illegal under Rape Shield laws.

At the very least, listen to the recordings and read the interviews with the victim at the Daily Beast and the Mail - linked right at the very bottom of the Snopes article. Those are the words of a woman who was the victim of, at the very least, sexual assault at age 12, who states that Clinton put her through extended hell.

Maybe Clinton was just following orders and had to take the case - contentious - and therefore did indeed have to defend him to the best of her ability. Whether she had to aggressively retraumstise the victim (as per the victim), mislead an expert into supporting her, and maybe have a chuckle about her client's guilt afterwards, I'll leave up to you. I personally choose to listen to the victim. One way or the other, if this were a Republican or a male politician, I think we all know Clinton supporters would be 100% supporting the victim rather than hunting for loopholes to erase her experiences.

(If there are typos and whatnot in this post, it's because I'm writing on my phone, which is being extremely erratic.)
Click to expand...

Having listened to the tape, it seems she was joking about the justice system and polygraphs, not this victim.

The issue with the blood expert seems to have been that the crime lab disposed of a lot of the evidence, so she was unable to have an independent expert verify anything. The expert said that there wasn't enough to test, i.e. there was no proof of who the blood was from.

They may have hired the psychologist, but clearly the court found them credible.

Even if she took the case as a favor (I'd like to see some proof of that), that doesn't mean she gets to defend to any less than the best of her abilities.
 
G

guek

Banned
I've been thinking about Trump and tax evasion and despite already being currently audited, I wonder if the statements he made during the debate would warrant a...I don't know...some kind of super audit.

Heh. I'm really ignorant of tax laws in this country.

But on top of that, would would happen to this election if Trump was convicted of tax fraud or tax evasion? What would happen if he was convicted as president???
 
X

xandaca

Member
Zeeman said:
Having listened to the tape, it seems she was joking about the justice system and polygraphs, not this victim.

The issue with the blood expert seems to have been that the crime lab disposed of a lot of the evidence, so she was unable to have an independent expert verify anything. The expert said that there wasn't enough to test, i.e. there was no proof of who the blood was from.

They may have hired the psychologist, but clearly the court found them credible.

Even if she took the case as a favor (I'd like to see some proof of that), that doesn't mean she gets to defend to any less than the best of her abilities.
Click to expand...

What you make of the recordings is of course down to you - it may be that my dislike of Clinton is making me interpret her remarks one way, but I hear someone joking about a guilty client, of sexually assaulting a child, being erroneously cleared by a polygraph test. I fully respect that you might interpret it differently, I just think it's important people who deify Clinton actually acknowledge and investigate these many questionable parts of her past.

Per the blood thing, our understanding of events basically lines up. I merely question whether using incomplete evidence to get an expert on your side is ethical. I also question if a psychologist, whom the victim says put her through hell, who says young women exaggerate sexual encounters was an unbiased choice, and why Clinton ended up choosing such a man. As for the court finding him credible, this was in 75 and even today, courts often do no treat sexual assault as seriously as they should. See: Turner, Brock.

For the favour thing, I put reportedly in there for precisely that reason. I've read it (I think in one of the victim interviews) but not been able to properly back it up. It deserves to be acknowledged, because it's another Clinton lie if true, but I deliberately marked it as not being conclusive.

Most importantly, though: everyone defending Clinton seems to be picking for relatively minor loopholes to justify their love of the candidate, while quite happily ignoring the key fact that the VICTIM has twice come out to describe Clinton's treatment of her as putting her through hell. Again: would so many excuses be made if the politician in question were Republican? I wonder...
 
Joe Molotov

Joe Molotov

Member
xandaca said:
What you make of the recordings is of course down to you - it may be that my dislike of Clinton is making me interpret her remarks one way, but I hear someone joking about a guilty client, of sexually assaulting a child, being erroneously cleared by a polygraph test. I fully respect that you might interpret it differently, I just think it's important people who deify Clinton actually acknowledge and investigate these many questionable parts of her past.

Per the blood thing, our understanding of events basically lines up. I merely question whether using incomplete evidence to get an expert on your side is ethical. I also question if a psychologist, whom the victim says put her through hell, who says young women exaggerate sexual encounters was an unbiased choice, and why Clinton ended up choosing such a man. As for the court finding him credible, this was in 75 and even today, courts often do no treat sexual assault as seriously as they should. See: Turner, Brock.

For the favour thing, I put reportedly in there for precisely that reason. I've read it (I think in one of the victim interviews) but not been able to properly back it up. It deserves to be acknowledged, because it's another Clinton lie if true, but I deliberately marked it as not being conclusive.

Most importantly, though: everyone defending Clinton seems to be picking for relatively minor loopholes to justify their love of the candidate, while quite happily ignoring the key fact that the VICTIM has twice come out to describe Clinton's treatment of her as putting her through hell. Again: would so many excuses be made if the politician in question were Republican? I wonder...
Click to expand...

In the criminal justice system, all defendants are innocent until proven guilty, either by confession, plea bargain, or trial by jury. This is one of those trials
 
Z

Zeeman

Member
xandaca said:
Per the blood thing, our understanding of events basically lines up. I merely question whether using incomplete evidence to get an expert on your side is ethical.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I concede it's possible to have legitimate disagreements about the other points, but how on earth is this unethical? The prosecution fucked up by destroying evidence, they don't get to rely on it when the defense can't test it.
 
B

BSsBrolly

Banned
xandaca said:
What you make of the recordings is of course down to you - it may be that my dislike of Clinton is making me interpret her remarks one way, but I hear someone joking about a guilty client, of sexually assaulting a child, being erroneously cleared by a polygraph test. I fully respect that you might interpret it differently, I just think it's important people who deify Clinton actually acknowledge and investigate these many questionable parts of her past.

Per the blood thing, our understanding of events basically lines up. I merely question whether using incomplete evidence to get an expert on your side is ethical. I also question if a psychologist, whom the victim says put her through hell, who says young women exaggerate sexual encounters was an unbiased choice, and why Clinton ended up choosing such a man. As for the court finding him credible, this was in 75 and even today, courts often do no treat sexual assault as seriously as they should. See: Turner, Brock.

For the favour thing, I put reportedly in there for precisely that reason. I've read it (I think in one of the victim interviews) but not been able to properly back it up. It deserves to be acknowledged, because it's another Clinton lie if true, but I deliberately marked it as not being conclusive.

Most importantly, though: everyone defending Clinton seems to be picking for relatively minor loopholes to justify their love of the candidate, while quite happily ignoring the key fact that the VICTIM has twice come out to describe Clinton's treatment of her as putting her through hell. Again: would so many excuses be made if the politician in question were Republican? I wonder...
Click to expand...

It's definitely your dislike of Clinton. This will never be a scandal to anyone who doesn't dislike Clinton already, just like every other Clinton "scandal." There is a reason these stories aren't covered by real news networks...
 
S

Surfinn

Member
You'd think if there's no reason not to release his tax returns, he'd follow in line with everyone else in the last 40 years. Not doing this makes you look goddamn suspicious. Nothing to hide, then show us so we can move on.

Not a good look.
 
L

Laevateinn

Member
BSsBrolly said:
It's definitely your dislike of Clinton. This will never be a scandal to anyone who doesn't dislike Clinton already, just like every other Clinton "scandal." There is a reason these stories aren't covered by real news networks...
Click to expand...

Because Hillary's base is the media of course. Open your eyes sheeple.
 
X

xandaca

Member
Joe Molotov said:
In the criminal justice system, all defendants are innocent until proven guilty, either by confession, plea bargain, or trial by jury. This is one of those trials
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're saying: as per the plea bargain Clinton struck, Taylor pled guilty to Unlawful Fondling Of A Minor. So he is, by court ruling, definitely guilty of what is now sexual assault at the very least.
 
X

xandaca

Member
BSsBrolly said:
It's definitely your dislike of Clinton. This will never be a scandal to anyone who doesn't dislike Clinton already, just like every other Clinton "scandal." There is a reason these stories aren't covered by real news networks...
Click to expand...

Yes, every single Clinton scandal across the decades is nothing more than a smear campaign. She is perfect, and you are a Good And Moral Person for your unblinking support of her. Keep telling yourself that. At least you're OK!
 
E

Eppy Thatcher

God's had his chance.
xandaca said:
What you make of the recordings is of course down to you - it may be that my dislike of Clinton is making me interpret her remarks one way, but I hear someone joking about a guilty client, of sexually assaulting a child, being erroneously cleared by a polygraph test. I fully respect that you might interpret it differently, I just think it's important people who deify Clinton actually acknowledge and investigate these many questionable parts of her past.

Per the blood thing, our understanding of events basically lines up. I merely question whether using incomplete evidence to get an expert on your side is ethical. I also question if a psychologist, whom the victim says put her through hell, who says young women exaggerate sexual encounters was an unbiased choice, and why Clinton ended up choosing such a man. As for the court finding him credible, this was in 75 and even today, courts often do no treat sexual assault as seriously as they should. See: Turner, Brock.

For the favour thing, I put reportedly in there for precisely that reason. I've read it (I think in one of the victim interviews) but not been able to properly back it up. It deserves to be acknowledged, because it's another Clinton lie if true, but I deliberately marked it as not being conclusive.

Most importantly, though: everyone defending Clinton seems to be picking for relatively minor loopholes to justify their love of the candidate, while quite happily ignoring the key fact that the VICTIM has twice come out to describe Clinton's treatment of her as putting her through hell. Again: would so many excuses be made if the politician in question were Republican? I wonder...
Click to expand...

If that Republican happened to be a lawyer? doing their job to the best of their abilities? Yes. I'm pretty sure the "excuses" would be there.
 
B

BSsBrolly

Banned
xandaca said:
Yes, every single Clinton scandal across the decades is nothing more than a smear campaign. She is perfect, and you are a Good And Moral Person for your unblinking support of her. Keep telling yourself that. At least you're OK!
Click to expand...

👌

If there is a scandal, it's drowned out by all the bullshit like the "scandal" you tried bringing up.
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
xandaca said:
Yes, every single Clinton scandal across the decades is nothing more than a smear campaign. She is perfect, and you are a Good And Moral Person for your unblinking support of her. Keep telling yourself that. At least you're OK!
Click to expand...

Name the scandal and we can talk.
 
Joe Molotov

Joe Molotov

Member
xandaca said:
Not sure what you're saying: as per the plea bargain Clinton struck, Taylor pled guilty to Unlawful Fondling Of A Minor. So he is, by court ruling, definitely guilty of what is now sexual assault at the very least.
Click to expand...

Oh, well I'm glad she was able to prove him guilty then. Good on her.
 
S

sflufan

Banned
guek said:
I've been thinking about Trump and tax evasion and despite already being currently audited, I wonder if the statements he made during the debate would warrant a...I don't know...some kind of super audit.

Heh. I'm really ignorant of tax laws in this country.

But on top of that, would would happen to this election if Trump was convicted of tax fraud or tax evasion? What would happen if he was convicted as president???
Click to expand...

I want to point out an important distinction in terminology.

"Tax avoidance" involves the use of means within the tax code to reduce or eliminate one's tax liability. That is perfectly leagal.

"Tax evasion" involves the use of illegal means to reduce or eliminate one's tax liability.

What Trump said was "tax avoidance" and does not in anyway imply any illegality.
 
X

xandaca

Member
Since I have to do some work and this is getting repetitive (if you want to play 'name the scandal', they're in my post history, all of the provably linked to Clinton, none of them real conspiracy theory ones like Vince Foster, for instance), I'll leave it at this: I have no problem with people voting for Clinton, not least since Trump would be immeasurably worse. I could not morally vote for either - if I were American - but my decisions are of course not yours. You're voting her to keep him out? Fine. You're voting her for a liberal Supreme Court? Fine. You like what she claims she'll do when elected? Fine. Even if you have to pick a reason as empty as 'just liking her' or 'because she's a woman', I don't particularly respect that reason, but it's still your choice.

What I will not accept, however, is this hypocritical rubbish that she's some pure as the driven snow martyr, for whom a good thirty years of semi-regular scandals is either a smear campaign, conspiracy theories (though some certainly are) or ignorable blots on an otherwise flawless record. Your distance may vary on taking some more seriously than others, but if you are fundamentally incapable of at the very least, even while acknowledging her as still the far better choice than Trump, recognising that there are some extremely serious problems in her past, even if only so far as on a pure judgment level, you do not get to pretend you're some morally upstanding person for approving her. She has been at the top table of US and world politics since the 90s, and someone who has (at least) been strongly linked to so many major scandals before and since must be held completely accountable, not whitewashed to salve her supporters' consciences.

(I also recognise and appreciate that while I think it says a lot that many people here continue to ignore the testimony of the victim about Clinton in this particular case, I'm not slagging off those who've responded to my points perfectly reasonably and fairly, even if we totally disagree.)
 
A

aliengmr

Member
xandaca said:
What you make of the recordings is of course down to you - it may be that my dislike of Clinton is making me interpret her remarks one way, but I hear someone joking about a guilty client, of sexually assaulting a child, being erroneously cleared by a polygraph test. I fully respect that you might interpret it differently, I just think it's important people who deify Clinton actually acknowledge and investigate these many questionable parts of her past.

Per the blood thing, our understanding of events basically lines up. I merely question whether using incomplete evidence to get an expert on your side is ethical. I also question if a psychologist, whom the victim says put her through hell, who says young women exaggerate sexual encounters was an unbiased choice, and why Clinton ended up choosing such a man. As for the court finding him credible, this was in 75 and even today, courts often do no treat sexual assault as seriously as they should. See: Turner, Brock.

For the favour thing, I put reportedly in there for precisely that reason. I've read it (I think in one of the victim interviews) but not been able to properly back it up. It deserves to be acknowledged, because it's another Clinton lie if true, but I deliberately marked it as not being conclusive.

Most importantly, though: everyone defending Clinton seems to be picking for relatively minor loopholes to justify their love of the candidate, while quite happily ignoring the key fact that the VICTIM has twice come out to describe Clinton's treatment of her as putting her through hell. Again: would so many excuses be made if the politician in question were Republican? I wonder...
Click to expand...

This victim?

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” — at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.
Click to expand...

But yes, how dare a defense attorney, defend their client.
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
Empyrean Heaven said:
VP has the potential to be really fun. Kaine and Pence are so damn white bread that they might actually get to some issues rather than scream at each other.
Click to expand...
zzbuCSC.jpg


Actually really excited for this one. Probably will really get to the issues, Pence is going to be boring, but I'd like to hear more from Kaine.
 
J

Jmille99

Member
Surfinn said:
You'd think if there's no reason not to release his tax returns, he'd follow in line with everyone else in the last 40 years. Not doing this makes you look goddamn suspicious. Nothing to hide, then show us so we can move on.

Not a good look.
Click to expand...

You see, you just dont understand. He will release them at the appropriate time:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/donald-trump-tax-returns-birth?utm_term=.rw259wpbM#.bvW685xAN

Its only been 5 years, the time still isnt right. But when it is, itll be tremendous and the greatest tax returns youve ever seen.
 
J

joebruin

Member
Eric Trump said:
I mean, he very well could’ve looked down — and he said it when he came off the debate stage, ‘I wasn’t gonna respond to that question because I saw Chelsea in the front row and I just wasn’t gonna go there out of respect for her.’ And that was a big moment for me and probably will actually become, my life and this campaign, and probably will be something I’ll always remember.
Click to expand...

I mean, he really took the high ground where he had the opportunity to go very, very low. And I’m proud of him for doing that. I mean, I’m really proud of him for doing that. And I think people recognize that. I mean, there are a lot of people who came up to me, including many in the media, who said listen, he could’ve just crushed her on that last question. And he would’ve probably hurt a family if he did…I think that took a lot of courage.
Click to expand...


Lol using the apple argument.
 
S

Surfinn

Member
G

gutter_trash

Banned
so Sarah Palin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Trump in terms of prepping for a debate

even if Palin lacked knowledge on foreign affairs before hand, she at least crammed for her VP debate.
Trump did not
 
W

WhiskerFrisker

Member
I just cannot get why Clinton is so disliked. I was taking the train home from class with a classmate of mine and the conversation steered to the debates. At least we agreed that Trump was terrible but my friend seems to dislike Hilary. The usual email thing got brought up and he claimed that she is a snake. I don't understand why she can't shake off that view of her.
 
R

ratcliffja

Member
WhiskerFrisker said:
I just cannot get why Clinton is so disliked. I was taking the train home from class with a classmate of mine and the conversation steered to the debates. At least we agreed that Trump was terrible but my friend seems to dislike Hilary. The usual email thing got brought up and he claimed that she is a snake. I don't understand why she can't shake off that view of her.
Click to expand...

She's a woman, is seen as part of the establishment, has less charisma than many candidates, and has a smear campaign against her that's lasted decades. It's a miracle she's this close to the presidency, which says a lot about her and her campaign team.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
xandaca said:
Since I have to do some work and this is getting repetitive (if you want to play 'name the scandal', they're in my post history, all of the provably linked to Clinton, none of them real conspiracy theory ones like Vince Foster, for instance), I'll leave it at this: I have no problem with people voting for Clinton, not least since Trump would be immeasurably worse. I could not morally vote for either - if I were American - but my decisions are of course not yours. You're voting her to keep him out? Fine. You're voting her for a liberal Supreme Court? Fine. You like what she claims she'll do when elected? Fine. Even if you have to pick a reason as empty as 'just liking her' or 'because she's a woman', I don't particularly respect that reason, but it's still your choice.

What I will not accept, however, is this hypocritical rubbish that she's some pure as the driven snow martyr, for whom a good thirty years of semi-regular scandals is either a smear campaign, conspiracy theories (though some certainly are) or ignorable blots on an otherwise flawless record. Your distance may vary on taking some more seriously than others, but if you are fundamentally incapable of at the very least, even while acknowledging her as still the far better choice than Trump, recognising that there are some extremely serious problems in her past, even if only so far as on a pure judgment level, you do not get to pretend you're some morally upstanding person for approving her. She has been at the top table of US and world politics since the 90s, and someone who has (at least) been strongly linked to so many major scandals before and since must be held completely accountable, not whitewashed to salve her supporters' consciences.

(I also recognise and appreciate that while I think it says a lot that many people here continue to ignore the testimony of the victim about Clinton in this particular case, I'm not slagging off those who've responded to my points perfectly reasonably and fairly, even if we totally disagree.)
Click to expand...

I've had a lot going on in my life recently so only just catching up on this debate. What I will say is your dislike of Hillary isn't exclusive to you somehow being a supporter of the opposition. A lot of Americans are hyper sensitive and incredibly twitchy on the trigger to nuke fucking everything and anything 1% politically different from them. Kind of understandable given just how much of a mess America is in politically. It'll be easier to criticise Hillary again if Trump is kept out. Right now too many Americans are just conflating thinking Hillary isn't such a fabulous candidate with "here boys we got a closet Trump supporter". This kind of grouping is everywhere online these days though. Individualism is largely "dead". Soo many people crave to constantly group everyone they come across, therefore you either have to be in their category or you're part of the opposition/other. Rather than shock horror, individuals being able to have varied opinions and agree/disagree interchangeably on many topics whilst still being fairly aligned overall. The best way around this rather disingenuous attempt to shutdown any dissenting opinion is to always go into depth and refrain from drivebys and one liners. That way you do yourself justice sharing your opinion even if you get met with stupid rhetoric to try and silence you/call you something you aren't.

So on cue, yeah, I think Hillary is such a meh candidate. Nowhere near as bad as Trump, but as a candidate to lead a country? I guess more so America is this the best you could come up with? Or I guess I should say America here is what money does when it is poisoning your whole political system. I mean don't even get me started on your shambolic health care system. I don't support identity politics championing either, such as "first x" reasons simply to tick them off. Not with something as important as the presidency of a country. I thought Obama was a good choice because of his character and things he was saying, not because he was black. That may be a milestone for the country, but it is one to be happy to see for the right reasons. Those reasons being the actual candidate was good. Hillary doesn't even seem a fraction as composed and intelligent as Obama. I guess that is solely my opinion, duh, but Obama to me just comes across far superior.

Right now South Park literally has it spot on. Douche vs Turd. Also if you want to see a good example of a leader who happens to be female, look to my country, Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon is one heck of a women leader, and importantly backs compassion, care and a distaste for blowing billions on nuclear weapons. Bash the UK for Brexit and the Tories, fine, but my country voted fuck all to do with either. I'm a Brit utterly disappointed and laughing at how bad the UK has become politically (more so England, a bloated toxic mess ironically trying to mimic America with millionaires and career politicians/insane boner for war and weapons), but as an outsider also currently laughing at how bad America has it. Cmon America, I love your people and your country should be doing so much better than it is.

Keep Trump out, but then try and actually do something about the career politicians and millionaires trying to run your country based on filthy profiteering such as your health industry, and smearing lies and bullshit absolutely everywhere just to get votes. I cannot imagine where you will be politically in 20 years after this farce of an election. Its hilarious seeing memes and 4chan/reddit being all over news sites. Hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Politics isn't suppose to be a sport, or some Superbowl event and a meme generator. Hopefully humanity autocorrects itself in the near future. I say that for the UK as well, although the answer there for me is simple. Scottish independence and cutting England off like that "cut off Florida meme gif".

By the way Gary Johnson is a fucking rocket as well. While in terms of American political speak I'd probably say I'm a classic liberal, him being the best the libertarian's could put forward is also depressing. Again, I can agree with principals he holds whilst still thinking he was a terrible candidate.
 
K

KO Traveling Hobo

Member
WhiskerFrisker said:
I just cannot get why Clinton is so disliked. I was taking the train home from class with a classmate of mine and the conversation steered to the debates. At least we agreed that Trump was terrible but my friend seems to dislike Hilary. The usual email thing got brought up and he claimed that she is a snake. I don't understand why she can't shake off that view of her.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think part of why I'm not a big fan of Clinton is because of how she compares to Obama. He was a charismatic, younger black person leading a hype train campaign based on hope and change, and Clinton is just another stuffy old white person. It's especially glaring since Obama's elections are the only ones I've been old enough to vote in.

I'm thrilled to see a woman on her way to the white house, but in most other respects it feels like a step backward.

I don't hate her or think she's a snake, though, and I will be voting for her.
 
W

WhiskerFrisker

Member
KO Traveling Hobo said:
Personally, I think part of why I'm not a big fan of Clinton is because of how she compares to Obama. He was a charismatic, younger black person leading a hype train campaign based on hope and change, and Clinton is just another stuffy old white person. It's especially glaring since Obama's elections are the only ones I've been old enough to vote in.

I'm thrilled to see a woman on her way to the white house, but in most other respects it feels like a step backward.

I don't hate her or think she's a snake, though, and I will be voting for her.
Click to expand...
Oh I absolutely agree, but she isn't horrible like Trump and I wish others would see this.
 
C

Chie Satonaka

Member
xandaca said:
Yes, every single Clinton scandal across the decades is nothing more than a smear campaign. She is perfect, and you are a Good And Moral Person for your unblinking support of her. Keep telling yourself that. At least you're OK!
Click to expand...

Christ.

I don't even fucking like Clinton (but I'm supporting her!) and this is getting tired.
 
L

LilWayneSuckz

Member
KO Traveling Hobo said:
Personally, I think part of why I'm not a big fan of Clinton is because of how she compares to Obama. He was a charismatic, younger black person leading a hype train campaign based on hope and change, and Clinton is just another stuffy old white person. It's especially glaring since Obama's elections are the only ones I've been old enough to vote in.

I'm thrilled to see a woman on her way to the white house, but in most other respects it feels like a step backward.

I don't hate her or think she's a snake, though, and I will be voting for her.
Click to expand...

This sentiment seems to be shared with most people who don't like Hillary.

I personally don't understand it since Obama is charismatic as a person, but he and Hillary aren't fundamentally different in terms of how they would operate in the White House and she's running on a 3rd Obama term which any Obama supporter should be happy to have.....but instead we get "both sides are the same"..."this is the worst election ever"...etc. People who think they're being edgy and cool by feigning interest in the election because Ellen Degeneres can't dance with the nominees for president.
 
F

Fantastical

Death Prophet
Lol my relatives are posting so many god damn conspiracy theories about the debate. SHE USED SECRET GESTURE TO LESTER. SHE WAS WEARING SOME KIND OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE UNDER HER CLOTHES.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Mahonay said:
It's not fair because she is intelligent and treated the debate seriously.

This is a fucking argument being made in 2016 about a presidential debate. Fuck everything.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is, these same people think Clinton is some kind of criminal mastermind that keeps getting away with it. They don't think she could handle a debate?

Well I suppose whatever works for their logic in imagining that Hillary is as worst as possible. Throw stupid into the mix because why not? We'll see what she should be called tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
God of War Ragnarök | Review Thread
Analysis Review Hype 22 23 24 25 26
1K
81K
WitchHunter replied
Cooler Master starts production of 'Orb-X immersive gaming pod'. PCmag releases hands-on video. $15,000 (station only) upgrades to be released in 2023
42
3K
Rival replied
Freeform (ABC Family) - A channel with multiple identities
6
2K
showernota replied
  • Poll
[Ars Technica] Google should kill Stadia
Opinion Drama 2 3
105
9K
Moochi replied
Toonami - the after-school show that defined an anime generation
49
7K
AngelaLifman replied
Top Bottom