Whispering 18,865 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 5 hours ago, Kayla said: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-to-release-tax-returns-223811 Sanders camp: Tax returns will be out before conventionBy Nick Gass 06/02/16 06:49 AM EDT Jane has to go home and dig them up from the vault buried in the backyard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 5 hours ago, Kayla said: I thought we weren't supposed to make negative assumptions about why candidates don't comment about certain matters, i.e. Hillary's private speeches? So is silence NOT a good representation of what's really going on or is it "telling"? Lol...that's what everyone does here, every day now for months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed 7,716 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 9 hours ago, LebaneseDude said: Name one that isn't the e-mails or Benghazi without using the Internet Plus her defending and actually laughing about getting a rapist out of jail while KNOWINGLY admitting his guilt. She said his passing of the polygraph destroyed her faith in polygraphs and she got him off. And I used an official site of the Internet to find that. Accusing the Internet of being inherently fallacious is in itself a fallacy and used to deflect from actual facts. All the databases I use for my English major studies are on the Internet but BECAUSE they're on the Internet they are automatically wrong? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/ if you read the whole article in a sworn affidavit she slut shames a girl under the age of fifteen to win her case, which she did. I respect you and @Kayla but just because I'm disagreeing with Hillary that doesn't mean I'm automatically incorrect or my assumptions aren't based in truth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 4 hours ago, Jed said: Plus her defending and actually laughing about getting a rapist out of jail while KNOWINGLY admitting his guilt. She said his passing of the polygraph destroyed her faith in polygraphs and she got him off. And I used an official site of the Internet to find that. Accusing the Internet of being inherently fallacious is in itself a fallacy and used to deflect from actual facts. All the databases I use for my English major studies are on the Internet but BECAUSE they're on the Internet they are automatically wrong? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/ if you read the whole article in a sworn affidavit she slut shames a girl under the age of fifteen to win her case, which she did. I respect you and @Kayla but just because I'm disagreeing with Hillary that doesn't mean I'm automatically incorrect or my assumptions aren't based in truth. *sigh* when I have to repeat the same arguments over and over again Why are you using GOP smears against her? It's so sad Quote any media outlet you want. Do the research YOURSELF if you're that invested and watch the video YOURSELF. It quickly becomes clear that claiming she laughed AT the victim is beyond a reach. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/19/did-clinton-laugh-about-a-rapists-light-sentence-and-attack-sexual-harassment-victims/ This refers to a 41-year-old case which resurfaced when the Washington Free Beacon in 2014 discoveredunpublished audio recordings from the mid-1980s of Clinton being interviewed by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published. The case was also covered extensively in a 2008 article by Glenn Thrush in Newsday. In 1975, Clinton – then Hillary Rodham – was a 27-year-old law professor running a legal aid clinic in the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. After a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, he asked the judge to replace his male court-appointed lawyer with a female attorney. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. On the recording, Clinton describes it as a “terrible case” and also “fascinating.” In her autobiography, “Living History,” Clinton wrote, “I told [prosecutor] Mahlon [Gibson] I really don’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.” Gibson has confirmed that account in interviews with Newsday and CNN, saying Clinton told him: “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?” (On the tape, Clinton says the prosecutor asked if she could take the case “a favor to him.”) In other words, Clinton was a court-appointed attorney, given the case despite personal objections. (As Newsday put it, “Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win.”) Once appointed, she aggressively defended the alleged rapist; at one point, she attacked the 12-year-old’s credibility, writing in an affidavit that she had been informed “the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” An investigator on the case told Newsday that there were “serious inconsistencies” in the victim’s statements about the incident, in part because of her “infatuation” with a 15-year-old boy who was also present and told authorities he had sexxx with her. Ultimately, the prosecution’s case fell apart for a number of reasons, including investigators mishandling evidence of bloody underwear, so in a plea agreement the charges were reduced from first-degree rape to unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14. Until the Newsday report, the victim did not realize that Clinton had been the lawyer on the other side. She has since attacked Clinton for putting “me through hell.” In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him. Watch the video: Here are the four instances: 1. “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” (Both Clinton and the reporter laugh) 2. “So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings [the judge] and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented. (Clinton laughs lightly between “evidence” and “before”) 3. “I handed it [a biography of her expert witness] to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.’” (Clinton laughs, as does the reporter) 4. “So [judge] Maupin had to, you know, under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out if it was factually supported. I said ‘Judge I can’t leave the room I’m his lawyer!’ he said ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.'” (Reporter says, “Oh God, really?” And they both laugh.) To justify the line in the ad, Alleigh Marre, an NRSC spokeswoman, pointed to a 2014 ABC News account that said “Clinton is heard laughing as she describes how she succeeded at getting her client a lighter sentence, despite suggesting she knew he was guilty.” Clinton certainly laughs during the conversation but at no point does she laugh specifically about the sentence. ------ If you're trying to claim that she's not allowed to crack jokes in a private setting, then you yourself are being beyond cynical. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla 7,595 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 9 hours ago, Jed said: Plus her defending and actually laughing about getting a rapist out of jail while KNOWINGLY admitting his guilt. She said his passing of the polygraph destroyed her faith in polygraphs and she got him off. And I used an official site of the Internet to find that. Accusing the Internet of being inherently fallacious is in itself a fallacy and used to deflect from actual facts. All the databases I use for my English major studies are on the Internet but BECAUSE they're on the Internet they are automatically wrong? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/ if you read the whole article in a sworn affidavit she slut shames a girl under the age of fifteen to win her case, which she did. I respect you and @Kayla but just because I'm disagreeing with Hillary that doesn't mean I'm automatically incorrect or my assumptions aren't based in truth. I think when @LebaneseDude said "without using the Internet" they meant "without needing to search," meant to show that a lot of people form big opinions from small snippets of information and don't actually know enough about the topic to make further discussion without needing to do a google search. So they weren't necessarily saying the Internet is unreliable, but rather that quickly and superficially formed opinions are. (I don't think your opinion is superficial, btw- just clarifying how I interpreted the other user's intentions) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Kayla said: I think when @LebaneseDude said "without using the Internet" they meant "without needing to search," meant to show that a lot of people form big opinions from small snippets of information and don't actually know enough about the topic to make further discussion without needing to do a google search. So they weren't necessarily saying the Internet is unreliable, but rather that quickly and superficially formed opinions are. (I don't think your opinion is superficial, btw- just clarifying how I interpreted the other user's intentions) Sounds about right Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed 7,716 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Kayla said: I think when @LebaneseDude said "without using the Internet" they meant "without needing to search," meant to show that a lot of people form big opinions from small snippets of information and don't actually know enough about the topic to make further discussion without needing to do a google search. So they weren't necessarily saying the Internet is unreliable, but rather that quickly and superficially formed opinions are. (I don't think your opinion is superficial, btw- just clarifying how I interpreted the other user's intentions) Ahh I see I think how it was worded is what threw me 💜 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 4,410 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 21 hours ago, LebaneseDude said: What a fraud because his wife is a fraud. I'm not seeing evidence of fraud here. Ineptitude, perhaps. When you say she "overstated" the amount of pledges, this seems to misunderstand the nature of pledges. A pledge is just someone saying "I'll pay you $X later"; then, when "later" comes, they may or may not actually pay. Not much the one pledged to can do about that. But this imaginary money gets counted all the time. Like that big tote board in the old Jerry Lewis telethon -- very little of that money had actually been collected by the time it appeared in the total; it was just pledged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luiz 4,253 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 yup she deserves everything coming to her i hope the proper authorities pursue the death penalty. fry this crooked c*unt i still dig her husband tho. good egg that bernie I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 8 hours ago, Luiz said: yup she deserves everything coming to her i hope the proper authorities pursue the death penalty. fry this crooked c*unt i still dig her husband tho. good egg that bernie Election money fraud, tho. We have to fry Bernie too! Throw in Hillary for the email scandal and Trump for his discrimnatory real estate practices and we've got no one left to run! Maybe Sarah Palin will come back and run! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 6, 2016 Author Share Posted June 6, 2016 41 minutes ago, Whispering said: Election money fraud, tho. We have to fry Bernie too! Throw in Hillary for the email scandal and Trump for his discrimnatory real estate practices and we've got no one left to run! Maybe Sarah Palin will come back and run! O'Malley for president. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 4,410 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 22 hours ago, Whispering said: Election money fraud, tho. Where? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 9 minutes ago, Nemo said: Where? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/11/1525428/-FEC-releases-damning-639-pages-of-violations-by-Bernie-Sanders-campaign 639 compared to Clinton and Trump's 10 or so Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperIz 7,354 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Stopped reading after you made fun of the way he speaks so yeah bye. Human generated art Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 1 minute ago, PaperIz said: Stopped reading after you made fun of the way he speaks so yeah bye. Honey that's from the article Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.