• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this change your opinion of Hillary?

Does this change your opinion of Hillary?

  • Didn't like her before, still don't.

    Votes: 24 68.6%

  • Didn't like her before, now I do.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Liked her before, still do.

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Liked her before, now I do not.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It's a right wing conspiracy.

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • Total voters
    35
Arbo said:
I don't need an article to know what a piece of garbage her and most other politicians are. But it's very entertaining to watch the same defenses and excuses over and over and over, from both sides.
Click to expand...

Non-responsive.

Next time, don't choose a crap article to support your position.
 
Not sure on this but it seems she may be saying that this guy she went to see in NJ would testify the way you wanted him to testify if he was "interested" in the case, which may be code word for being paid. If so, she basically stated she knew the man on trial for rape was guilty and went to a corrupt expert to try and get him off. She also shows a lack of empathy for the victim, who is a child. It would show someone with a win at all cost character. More concern with winning than justice.
 
No it does not change my opinion.


Hillary simply represents a massive political faction. Voting for a candidate of a party is simply like a Communist or Nationalist choosing to side with their faction. The actual candidate isn't that big of an actual issue. It's the faction they represent that matters.

Voting for a political party is more like voting for an overall collective movement in one direction over time. The individuals involved aren't all that important nor are their lives.


Bush being a rich drunk in his college years didn't matter to Republicans. Clinton being a lecherous scumbag didn't matter to Democrats. The person doesn't matter, the movement does.
 
tres borrachos said:
Interesting story. I had never heard that.

The Free Beacon story cites a July 28, 1975 affidavit in which Clinton attacked the credibility of the young alleged victim, claiming that she was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”



Ah, so the victim deserved what she got, apparently.

She went on in the affidavit: “I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior.”

She added that the girl had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”



So the victim was just a little bitch?

If this was Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or any other right-leaning woman who was caught on tape saying these things and laughing about it, the left wing media would be all over it - and would not let it go. So would NOW and advocates of rape victims.

Did I like her before? No. Do I like her less now? No, because nothing in this story surprises me. She is trash.

I hope all of the women who have already declared their support for her in 2016 are proud of defending someone who thinks rape and getting off rapists is amusing.
Click to expand...

Great post, imo...sums it up for me.


I am neither Rep or Dem...but the woman is, imo, STAGGERINGLY overrated.

Her husband is intelligent, well educated, charming, cowardly, juvenile and slick (in a bad way)...and so (more or less) is she, imo.

In other words, she cares (imo) FAR more about her career then just about anyone including America.
 
Last edited:
I dislike her, but I don't see the issue. She was doing her job.
 
Gee, sure is interesting how some people have gone from essentially defending rapists and saying women all lie about it to suddenly being so very concerned about Hillary's supposed callousness towards a likely rape survivor... when it suits their political interest. Rape is a political tool now, apparently.

Anyway, as many others have pointed out, the OP is pretty disingenuous; there isn't any indication she finds the whole rapist thing funny going by the actual recordings. She certainly could be -- defense attorneys are often famously messed up people. But nothing here actually shows that.

I don't particularly care for Hillary to begin with. She certainly doesn't represent my views, on the whole. At least not where her actions are concerned. She's just another politician playing the game, and I'm sick to death of that. I am also sick to death of presidential dynasties. We don't need another Clinton.

But this non-evidence doesn't change anything for me.
 
I wasn't exactly a big Hilary fan to begin with, but yes, this most definitely changes MY opinion of her. I am definitely biased when it comes to child abuse, knowing some of the things I know about it, so whenever I hear something like this, subconsciously I have an immediate reaction of distrust and bad feelings towards her. I know I might be wrong, but that is my gut reaction. :shrug: So yes, when I hear things like this (especially if it has ANYTHING to do with children/teens), then my feelings are going to change about that person. Can't help it.
 
laska said:
Not sure on this but it seems she may be saying that this guy she went to see in NJ would testify the way you wanted him to testify if he was "interested" in the case, which may be code word for being paid.
Click to expand...

I didn't get that from the interview. My take-away was that the guy liked to disprove other people's findings. It sounded like an ego thing for him

If so, she basically stated she knew the man on trial for rape was guilty
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear from the interview that she thought he was guilty

She also shows a lack of empathy for the victim, who is a child. It would show someone with a win at all cost character. More concern with winning than justice.
Click to expand...

This is a common misconception of criminal defense attorneys. Our criminal justice system, being an adversarial system, requires people (specifically lawyers) to argue both sides of case as forcefully as possible regardless of their own personal beliefs about guilt and innocence. It is the defense lawyers duty to use any and all arguments (as long as they're legally allowed) that might get their client off because the prosecutor is certainly going to do the same. There can't be justice if one side gives a full court press while the other side puts up a token effort.
 
JumpinJack said:
The Daily Beast is a partisan site known for shilling incorrect information. Do you have a legitimate source? Transcription of a tape? An AP report quoting a source who was present at the time? If not, this story is likely not true, in teh first place.
Click to expand...

In the link is another link to the source, in the first paragraph.

The Hillary Tapes | Washington Free Beacon
 
sangha said:
I didn't get that from the interview. My take-away was that the guy liked to disprove other people's findings. It sounded like an ego thing for him



I think it's pretty clear from the interview that she thought he was guilty



This is a common misconception of criminal defense attorneys. Our criminal justice system, being an adversarial system, requires people (specifically lawyers) to argue both sides of case as forcefully as possible regardless of their own personal beliefs about guilt and innocence. It is the defense lawyers duty to use any and all arguments (as long as they're legally allowed) that might get their client off because the prosecutor is certainly going to do the same. There can't be justice if one side gives a full court press while the other side puts up a token effort.
Click to expand...

I wish I could take back my post as it can be interpreted in different ways. "And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was if you get him interested in the case then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out."
 
laska said:
I wish I could take back my post as it can be interpreted in different ways. "And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was if you get him interested in the case then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out."
Click to expand...

I assumed that what would "get him interested" was an opportunity to prove the other side wrong about the evidence and that the "it" in "so that it came out the way you wanted it" referred to the case and not any manipulation of the experts testimony.

In this case, the expert testified honestly about his belief as to why the evidence didn't support the prosecutors claim, which resulted in the evidence being tossed out. As a result, the case turned out the way Hillary wanted it to turn out (ie the accused was found not guilty due to a lack of evidence)

But that's just my take-away
 
Didn't like her before, now I do. I am now convinced that she has a serious set of balls, which is exactly what the left needs.

On a side note, is anyone really surprised that a lawyer, and especially one named Hillary Clinton is a heartless bitch?
 
Sababa said:
oh so that only works when right wingers say this. Got it.

In 1975 as a lawyer she was doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession when she defended this guy. He, by rights, deserves representation. She and the reporter were laughing at the idiocy of the way the prosecution handled the evidence and also over the fact that a good defense lawyer can get anyone off. I am not certain here what the problem is, she was talking about the way things work. Tell you what, get that internet rag that once paid hookers to lie about a Senate candidate in an attempt to influence an election to post the entire interview with context.

Or I will just assume this is a hit piece designed and edited to help the sheep feel better about themselves in the their little pens.
Click to expand...

She is laughing and enjoying her ability to get a child-rapist off on a technicality. Yeah. That's really reassuring :roll:
 
cpwill said:
She is laughing and enjoying her ability to get a child-rapist off on a technicality. Yeah. That's really reassuring :roll:
Click to expand...
OnWisconsin said:
On a side note, is anyone really surprised that a lawyer, and especially one named Hillary Clinton is a heartless bitch?
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
Whats the big deal? She has spent her entire marriage covering for her husband by trashing women.

But shes gonna be the leader in the 'War on Women" by golly...
Click to expand...


Some people didn't click on the link to the audio in the article.
 
Last edited:
Whats the big deal? She has spent her entire marriage covering for her husband by trashing women.

But shes gonna be the leader in the 'War on Women" by golly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom