Massive Clinton voter fraud in NY?

a reply to: Annee

No actually you got a little ahead of yourself, you were confused. Do you get it now?

Here let me help you! You tried to spin the fact that she laughed like some kind of sick and twisted nutcase by claiming it was her job. Well Sister, it was an epic fail on your part.

At the end of the day, you support a vile and disgusting human being who would laugh about such a horrible thing. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Sillyolme

At this point fraud allegations are irrelevant. The real problem is the fact that people aren't being allowed to vote.

All i read was the title...

All I have to say is, anyone who is surprised, raise your hand...

(looks around)

Yeah, me either.

a reply to: Sillyolme

So you want your Grandchildren to know that you helped elect a person who would laugh about something so sick?

Do your job, that is fine, but laugh about it, like it brought you pleasure to obstruct justice?

Let me ask you something, do you have any sympathy for the victim? ~$heopleNation

a reply to: UKTruth

It was considered a win amongst her peers. I'm sure as a young lawyer she was pleased with their approval.
No one likes defense lawyers but they're still necessary and it's still favorable that a guilty man go free rather than an innocent man go to prison. Our founding fathers understood this when they decided on our court system.
She did the job that the bar association required of her.

a reply to: UKTruth

The hypothesis is that these facts were due to Clinton being involved in voter fraud.

No, the hypothesis is that there was election fraud based on what was perceived as limited evidence. The conspiracy was then formulated on top of that hypothesis that Clinton had something to do with it, based on no evidence whatsoever. That is what I reject.

As I have already told you, conspiracy is none of the above. You introduced the term to try and shame another poster because of it's negative associations in popular culture.

I introduced the term because that is exactly what it is. There is no evidence to support such a claim above and beyond the original hypothesis of election fraud.

So far I have made no concession or reversal, though I am not above doing so.

Yes you did. First you said this:

If you are going to use a lack of facts/evidence as a rebuttal then you also have to introduce hypothesis and theory into the discussion.

When confronted on that statement, you said this:

You don't have to raise a hypothesis or theory, that's correct

Reversal...backtracking. Call it what you wish.

Your mental gymnastics to justify your lack of thought initially and your attacks on others only serve to make you look foolish. For everyone's sake, just get back on topic.

Your continue ad hominem attacks are off topic. Perhaps you should control your emotions and address the topic, instead of focusing on me.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Just keep on ignoring the fact that she laughed about it though. You live in a very strange World. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Annee

Amazing how they can find fault with a lawyer who gasp actually did what the bar and the court system required of her.

Yeah. She did her job. That's what I see.

If, for some, she didn't inflict or present the right emotional image when later questioned about it --- that's interpretation.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Pretty much. As I said elsewhere, "It doesn't matter who the purged voters support. 100% of them could be in the Clinton camp and I'd still find it absurd. The simple fact is, people are being robbed of their vote and that is not acceptable under any circumstances."

Of course, I'd be shocked to see an event like this that didn't somehow favor Clinton considering that the DNC has made it abundantly clear that they want her to win above all else.

a reply to: Annee

If her job was to defend a pedophile, then she should have conducted herself in totality with cold and clinical professionalism. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I can't think of many situations where laughing about previous cases would be acceptable to begin with. It is a very serious job.

But it's really just small potatoes compared to her other stuff, anyway. Laughing about getting a pedophile off the hook - whether that is actually what happened or not - is barely anything compared to her other - supposed - involvements.

a reply to: SheopleNation

Did she laugh about letting the guy go or was she happy with her performance as a defense attorney? You are attaching evil motives here. That's coming from someplace inside you.
Lawyers can't afford that kind of emotion to cloud their mission. The rules are laid out pretty clearly for prosecution and defense. If she did less than her job she wouldn't deserve to be a lawyer. That she was proud of the work she'd done was normal. Even if the defendant was dirt don't soil her with it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

It was considered a win amongst her peers. I'm sure as a young lawyer she was pleased with their approval.
No one likes defense lawyers but they're still necessary and it's still favorable that a guilty man go free rather than an innocent man go to prison. Our founding fathers understood this when they decided on our court system.
She did the job that the bar association required of her.

I don't disagree - she did her job as she was asked to do. I am just pointing out that it's her tone that some people don't like when discussing it. Personally I think it's not quite as bad as being made out. She does sound quite amused by the case and she did allude to the fact she knew he was guilty.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

That's true. I'm hoping they will correct the situation. Not that it would change the outcome. Most of the lost votes would have been for Hillary based on the rest of the state.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I actually can't really imagine Clinton as evil. She's just so totally and utterly without morals that there's no real label to apply to her. It's almost like she's running off code.

"Does this action increase Clinton wealth/influence/standing?
If yes: Execute action.
If no: Repeat loop."
(Note: Not actually proper coding.)

Kissing puppies, donating to charity, selling out votes, pardoning criminals for currency, executing orphans, funding terrorist groups, giving speeches, blackmailing, murdering, etc. Not to say that she's done all of these (though she's definitely done three of them and hasn't done one of them) but it's sort of ultimately irrelevant what those actions are.

If it increases her personal wealth and power, she does it.
If it doesn't, she really, really couldn't care less.

Can you really call a virus evil?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Someplace evil inside me? Lmao! Well you sure are choosy when it comes to judging others yourself. That is very hypocritical.

Now its about me, when before you said it's not about you? Well it's very clear that you and your hero Hillary are cut from the same cloth. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, I listened to the interview.

She's talking about it from the perspective of a lawyer calling it an interesting case.

Does she laugh at the victim? No. She laughs at the unreliability of a lie detector, because this jerk passed it.

Interpretation.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Wouldn't be quiiiiite so sure about that. Pretty sure I heard that the hardest area hit was the area Sanders was born in... Now, that may just be entirely coincidental and the birthplace of a candidate shouldn't sway the vote too massively, but it's a bit strange, no? A lot of oddities here.

I've also heard that the number of purged voters was around 125,000, so even if 100% of them are Sanders fans it wouldn't make him win. Still could sway the delegate count by a bit, though. In either direction.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, I listened to the interview.

She's talking about it from the perspective of a lawyer calling it an interesting case.

Does she laugh at the victim? No. She laughs at the unreliability of a lie detector, because this jerk passed it.

Interpretation.

Yep - can't disagree with that. The humour came at two points - the efficacy of lie detector tests and the fact she had to travel with the accused underpants!

a reply to: Annee

Definitely shows she either has a weird sense of humor or totally lacks morals and can't understand what's going on. (Possibly both, though I believe the latter.)

Can you imagine?

"So, I was defending this pedophile, right, and he was just so obviously guilty, but he passed a lie detector which helped me defend him and get him off his charges. *laugh*. Silly lie detectors, *laughs more.*"

I mean, that's not actually what she said, but can you imagine the looks you would get if you said that?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SheopleNation

Did she laugh about letting the guy go or was she happy with her performance as a defense attorney?

Yes, you have to separate the profession from individual cases or it will eat you up.

Don't we all do that to some degree?