USA Politics

For once, Travis posts something that isn't 100% bullshit..just 90% bullshit. It's actually an interesting story, here's a (surprising for CNN) pretty unbiased look at the case.

 
Yes, how dare Hillary do her job as a lawyer correctly. By that logic, the OJ Simpson defence case should have just said "Sorry, he did it, where's my paycheck?".
 
RTC said:
Yes, how dare Hillary do her job as a lawyer correctly.
Click to expand...
I don't know about this particular case but there's a big difference between defending (in criminal defence law) your client & attacking the alleged victim.

EDIT: Just watched the CNN clip. Character assassination of woman is the general theme I'm feeling here.
 
Last edited:
Yes, thats what I got out of it. I understand Clinton was doing her job, but she seems rather unapologetic toward the victim even though she apparently knows the person she was defending was guilty.
 
With regards to a lawyer, you aren't necessarily trying to prove that the defendant is innocent, rather to have a more convincing argument than the plaintiff's lawyer. You can argue for something that is 100% false, and still win the argument if your argument is more sound and well-constructed

Yeah, it's a miscarriage of justice that the guilty man got away with it, but you can't really blame Hillary for it. There's no need for her to go back and regret her decision for winning an argument for a guilty man.
 
I think the well-worn defence of discrediting the evidence given by rape victims & personal attacks on their character is plainly the criticism here. Clinton appears to have followed this path in this particular case back in the 70's; but this defence continues in courts across the world today. That it happened back then is hardly surprising. I guess it's what Clinton says about it now, upon reflection, that's important.
 
It's an unfortunate thing we need to come to terms with, but rape is one of the hardest things to prove in the court of law. Hillary went to relatively extensive measures in order to attempt to prove the defendant was innocent, because she was very much fighting an up-hill battle if she knew the defendant was guilty. And I wouldn't call what she said "personal attacks", more so fabrications to create a stronger case; I don't know whether the comments made by Hillary about the victim were accepted as truth at the time or not.

I do find it ridiculous that because she argued against a female rape victim, she must be contradicting herself when she's supportive of women's rights, but then again, in our modern, first-world society, women's rights are basically equal to men, so the initial statement is ridiculous anyhow. Feminists need to fight the battles in Saudi Arabia and the like instead of stomping around, looking for any indication of inequality and calling anything they choose out in countries like the US and UK.
 
RTC said:
Feminists need to fight the battles in Saudi Arabia and the like instead of stomping around, looking for any indication of inequality and calling anything they choose out in countries like the US and UK.
Click to expand...

Far more chance of getting something changed in these countries.
 
Brigantium said:
Far more chance of getting something changed in these countries.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I maintain that third-wave feminism is pointless outside of these countries, where women's rights are actually a concern. It's becoming more and more domineering and less and less egalitarian in the first world, since 99.9% of the problems have been addressed here.
 
I've never seen Hillary as someone who fights for women, or anybody for that matter. This story just sort of reinforces the impression I've already had of her. She definitely panders to the feminist crowd, but that's what politicians do. Bernie and The Donald are also clearly doing their fair of pandering as well. The difference is that Hillary is actually qualified to be president.
 
RTC said:
Maybe, but I maintain that third-wave feminism is pointless outside of these countries, where women's rights are actually a concern. It's becoming more and more domineering and less and less egalitarian in the first world, since 99.9% of the problems have been addressed here.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that but it's not one for this thread, really. Rolling it into egalitarianism would be better than old-style militant feminism, I'd agree, but there's still a lack of real life equality in a lot of respects, where it exists only in theory. People can attempt to tell those in other societies how to live their lives, but it's too often perceived as foreigners interfering and attacking local culture.
 
Some cultures are better than others though. That's a truth a lot of people need to swallow. That doesn't mean we aren't open to the free exchange of ideas, but some ideas are better than others and should be treated as such.

And it's not so much telling people how to live their lives, it's about pointing out what's wrong with the system and getting it fixed without fear of being persecuted for it.
 
Hillary is just horrible ... she has Richard Nixon in a pants suit written all over her. The State Department nailed her and her use of the email server pretty hard. Her trust rating are insanely low in any poll you find. Two horrible people running this election for sure.
 
She's mediocre at best for the Democrats, that's for sure, but unlike Trump, I can take her with a degree of sincerity, even it is a pretty small degree.

When was the last time the Republicans had a remotely acceptable choice for election?
 
RTC said:
Don't know enough about McCain's campaign to comment since I was a bit too young to get an informed opinion, but Romney was not at all a good candidate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...fdf30be-068c-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html
Click to expand...

I don't think Romney was an incredibly good candidate, but he was certainly "
a remotely acceptable choice" Much more than Hillary in fact. With her negatives, Romney would be in good shape against her. He never got anywhere near the depths of the negatives Hillary has
 
I think my main issue with Hillary is how uninspiring she is as a leader; I lack the confidence in her to take the initiative on attempting to solve a lot of the problems that America is facing. Say what you will about Obama, but he has been a very consequential president and has avoided major controversy whilst doing so. Hillary is a major downgrade from Obama for me personally.

That said, I'd vote Hillary over Romney, and definitely over Trump.

EDIT: Not my words, but a good expression of my views on the vitriol being thrown towards Clinton.

"In my opinion, a lot of it is the belief that Bernie Sanders is this once-in-a-lifetime chance to save the corrupt political system. This makes them see Hillary, as Bernie's biggest obstacle as evil.
I suspect it will calm down dramatically when the primary loser throws support behind the winner."
 
Hillary epitomizes what is wrong with the Democratic Party.
Trump epitomizes what the rest of the world fears and dislikes about America
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top