uh huh, polls have their limits.
Printable View
uh huh, polls have their limits.
Thank for that illuminating response.
No need to be smug. The truth is *polling* isn't the scientific data collection it's purported to be. Not since 9 out of 10 doctors surveyed said Lucky Strike was the best cigarette, or that half of all dentists surveyed said Colgate was the best toothpaste. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The truth is, you made a dubious claim about the reason why polls may be inaccurate and haven't bothered to acknowledge any of the real problems that have been brought up. Come on man.
You become more of an embarrassment for every day that passes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Goes to show that even mainstream Republicans have now entered the fact-free zone.
The youtube link is direct audio. I enjoy how you feel like its vital to 'correctly interpret' what her actual words mean. Let people decide of themselves. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Listening to it was pretty clear she found the situation amusing. There are two possible facts.
1. Hillary thinks he was guilty and enjoyed getting her client 'off' with what amounted to a slap on the wrist.
2. Hillary thinks he was innocent and chuckles about how she quickly resolved the case and got an innocent man jailed.
I don't really find anything amusing about the case at all but I'm not Hillary Clinton.
Of course we can always ask the victim what she thought about it all...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ctim-says.html
"According to Thrush’s article, the victim didn’t fault Clinton for her defense of the attacker during their 2008 interview, which took place in the prison where the victim was serving time for drug-related offenses, in the presence of the warden. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job,” he quoted the victim as saying. After all, everyone has a right to be defended in court. And 1975 was a lifetime ago.
But the victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.
“If I had known that day what I know now I would have told him exactly what I’m telling y’all today,” she said.
After she was released from prison in 2008, the victim read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
“I started seeing where I had really been stomped in the ground. I didn’t really know what to do about it. I just figured life would have to go on and I would have to live with it,” she said.
But after hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.
“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.
The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested. But that wasn’t the end of her ordeal.
She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance."
Yeah but perhaps we can first verify that the things we link to in support of our dumbass views aren't in fact just plain bullshit. You should do your damn' homework and you should read up on the issue before trying to use someone's suffering to score points that you haven't earned yourself. Clinton did her job. She also got him to cop to a plea deal rather than get away completely, and this plea deal was pushed for by the victim's mother in order to spare the girl from the ordeal of a protracted trial where she'd have to listen to the kind of stuff people like you say about rape victims. Clinton expressed regret at the fact that the perpetrator had been able to pass a polygraph test. She was also not the only person involved in the trial and any criticism you may have of her should also be directed at several other players, eg. the judge and the prosecutor. Do your damn' homework and use whatever is left of your goddamn' brain before you decide to post something so that we don't have to deal with with this incessant bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Btw, coming from a rape-apologist who has just recently expressed views of the kind that make rape-victims feel like shit and let rapists get away with raping their wives this stuff is just too rich for words.
The victim wasn't happy with the outcome. The victim was really unhappy about Hillary laughing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Rape-apologist? LOL as long as the person is actually guilty you'll be hard pressed to find another person on this board advocating the penalty I would support for rape.
You really should read the snopes summary before continuing. You can read, right? Do you need me to get you a Pashto translation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
24 days until the election? Sounds about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My fears for a Trump victory are kind of abating, what I am not so relaxed about is the risk of a next time where a populist who doesn't want to make you wash your hands after having seen him on TV joins the race for the White House. Anti-establishment feelings obviously are strong in the US, we may have a lucky escape this time, but we may not always be this lucky. Next time we may nog be so lucky as to get an all-over sleazebag trying to overthrow things.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...79042895558058
Alternatives. :o
The victim was unhappy about the Clinton tape. The victim has point blank stated that fact. Are you suggesting she is lying about her feelings about the tape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
He's always been a long shot. Why do you think I was so pissed he won the Republican nomination?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That being said there is a reason there is a massive amount anti-establishment feeling. The establishment sucks. Everything is looked at in the lens of re-election. Stand for principal? Only if it can be spun correctly and help their electoral chances. EVERYTHING is about it. Until we actually get someone who will vow (and carry out) the goal of lowering the debt in absolute terms and fix the nanny state and entitlement spending time bombs we are foisting on future generations people should stay anti-establishment.
Well, if that's what you think, isn't then the solution to start thinking about how you can get a political class less inclined to be obsessed with re-election and maybe a bit more representative? What might help is fewer elections, and then elections in a way that Joe Sixpack with new ideas actually can get elected and afford to be elected. In the USA it seems very much that millionaires have a disproportionate chance of getting elected and be elected. Can you really effectively represent your voters if you get $174,000.- a year, are expected to live in DC but also have a house in your district, without being loaded to start with?
It smacks a bit of Roman democracy, where being in office could only be afforded by the richest citizens.
Term limits is something that has often been suggested. We have it for the presidency why not for congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Ultimately even that won't solve the issue since it becomes a revolving door - serve time in congress than go on to be a lobbyist, run a campaign or a be part of a foundation. Power corrupts. The best way to get that corruption out is to minimize the discretionary funding of the government. Don't allow the possibility of pork barrel politics. Instill the idea that government is the last resort not the first resort to problems. Sadly that ship too has sailed as the current generation cares far more about economic security than liberty.
I think you misunderstood me. I am against term limits: a higher turnover of the same type of people is not going to achieve anything. Making elective office something even Joe Sixpack can afford to do is the solution. You created a system where only people with serious money can afford to attempt getting elected.
You get a substantial expense account for the DC apartment and staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No rises were allowed for the last 8 years and secondary conditions are being curtailed. Seems to be a big reason for the high percentage of rich representatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...Allowances.htmQuote:
In 2012, individual representatives received MRA allowances ranging from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613, with an average of $1,353,205.13.
I think they can survive. Plus everyone knows you get the real money once you leave office and get the private sector job you're woefully unqualified for.
Now, I suggest you read what you just wrote again and think how that in any way is going to get us better representatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Millionaires might be over-represented in the House, but they still only make up 32% of Congressmen. The easiest path to victory is to have the right connections, which means working in other successful campaigns. Obviously having money doesn't hurt, especially if it's derived from being a successful businessperson, but it's far from necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
"American News" making the Daily Mail look like a credible news source :haha:
https://twitter.com/b9AcE/status/790...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
Sigh, soon the FBI will be investigating e-mails sent by people who were acquaintances of people who at some time were e-mailing with Hillary Clinton. Don't tell me you weren't warned if they're coming to impound your PC.
I really don't know why you hate that newspaper so much. Your views here and what they think fit to print seem to back eachother up word for word.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Just because I don't 100% love your beloved institution and find it to be infallible doesn't mean I agree with that rag.
http://europe.newsweek.com/george-w-...s-497373?rm=eu
uh oh
dear oh dearQuote:
“It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”
*shakes head sadly*
Somewhat biased source given the language used but I thought the issue with Clinton was that they were HER emails including national security secrets not an advisors emails.
If it was Bush himself it would be an apt comparison.
Some of Bush' advisors probably would have had access to classified information. But that aside, is there any sane person still interested in that whole e-mail thing? Are Americans even going to get over Watergate to the extent that they don't go entirely bezerk every time somebody implies a politician might possibly at some time have felt that some parts of their lives are actually not part of their public life? This bloody scrutiny of scrutiny of scrutiny is really mind numbing.
If the emails in question were private ones then there'd be no story. It is illegally putting classified information on these emails that is the story not her private life.
I know many people who use two phones or email addresses, one for work and one for personal. Had she put her personal emails alone on a separate server this wouldn't be getting discussed.
Your attempts to make this about an intrusion into her privacy are cute.
I am not doing that. I am pointing out the excessive nature of scrutiny; it has already been established that there basically is no case. Nothing bigger can get out of this than the news that maybe emails were forwarded that Clinton probably should have treated with a little bit more care but the presence of which outside of the government infrastructure already wasn't a sufficient breach of security to prosecute. You can not build a case about classified information being re-leaked ; once it's out it's out.
https://theconversation.com/in-getti...titution-67906
#plotthickens
I heard a pundit say the US has been "criminalizing politicians" since Watergate -- every time you turn around there's a congressional committee asking for an investigation or special prosecutor for something, or demands for someone to step down or resign after a hot mic moment -- that's how deeply it affected/infected us. Don't know if he's right, since politicians have been disdained and mistrusted as self-serving opportunist *crooks* for generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Federal agencies taking sides in elections to settle old scores. LOL.
A dirty political family's misdeeds coming back to haunt them. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Want to try to defend that pardon?
Yep, settling old scores more important than democracy.