Producer Says There's Footage of Trump Saying the N-Word

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hillary flexed her legal muscles on a kid that was a victim of rape, needlessly. That's all I take from this story. It's not pretty, but, no, it doesn't change my mind that defendants have the right to a competent defense.

If the person making the claim has a history of making false accusations like this and is known to be mentally unstable, it is not unreasonable to ask for an evaluation. And a physical exam in such cases are common and/or mandatory. Ever heard of a rape kit?

Hillary did her job as a defense attorney, despite her not wanting the case, and she did what was reasonable in his defense.

This is being blown way out of proportion for nothing more than political partisanship.

Depends on the evidence the court used to grant the motion. If it was just hearsay, then, no, I do not think the child should have been subjected to a psychological evaluation.

And, yes, unfortunately I have experienced a rape kit examination when I was raped by a 37 year old stranger when i was 15. It was humiliating. I did it. The person who raped me went to prison for two life terms and I have no regrets doing that rape kit.

I do bet that a rape kit/psychological exam would be MUCH MORE scarring to the psyche if your rapist only got 2 months in county jail though.

I felt like a warrior winner. I am sure this woman just felt defeated and demeaned. Can you blame her?


ETA: By the way...I was NOT subjected to psychological examination when I was raped at age 15. That was 1986. 11 years after this incident. It's not standard. The person who raped me also plea-bargained and two charges were dropped. But he was facing four charges...each carried a maximum life sentence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I wish I could say that I understand what you went/go through, but that would be a lie. I can only offer a bit of "love" over the internet...for whatever it's worth.

As far as this issue goes, I'm sure not every case is identical and the people involved went through quite a bit of heartache and anger.

Hillary did her job and that was all we could ask her to do. I don't find it to be an issue whatsoever, just as I don't find Trump using the N-word to be that big of a deal.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Thank you, you get it. It's only the bullsh1t narrative of the PC crowd that create the racial tension. I think it's ridiculous.

a reply to: AshFan

Oh they gotta release that.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Which I find disgusting and I am actually surprised that Hillary introduced the argument. I used to be a Hillary supporter once

Hillary did not introduce the argument. She was told that she had a history of making such accusations.

No. It was not a direct quote in her motion. She paraphrased whatever she was told. She said she was informed the claimant had made false accusations about people attacking her body. Very, very vague. Did she once lie and say her brother "hit her first" in an argument?

Hillary framed the argument to suit a motion to have the child undergo a psychological examination.

We actually have NO IDEA what Hillary was told. I imagine she used every teeny tiny bit of evidence (hearsay) that she could find to support her motion.

As would be her job. It would be correct of her to explore every avenue in their defense.

I do not disagree with that. The defendant is entitled to a lawyer that defends him.

I am just shocked that Hilary would put a kid through the claims in the motion to compel the court to grant a psychological examination and the actual exam.

Reality is important here...

She tried to get out of being appointed to the case..But once she couldn't get out of it..

Her client denies he raped the girl...Didn't claim it was consensual, but denies that he physically raped her altogether.

She asks her client to take a polygraph...he passes it.

At that stage what defense attorney on the planet would not be obligated to at least to investigate the possibility that the girl made it up? Whatever she believes, she is obligated to have the girl questioned by a professional at that point, because her client could be facing decades in prison.

Physical evidence...The Prosecutor actually sent the girls' underwear to the lab to recover DNA..
The lab cut out the material with the DNA from the underwear...and then threw that part out by mistake and introduced underwear with a hole cut out of it in court as evidence..

So...No physical evidence and he passed a polygraph saying he didn't do it?...

Does she get him acquitted? No...despite all the evidence in her clients favor, she sits him down, gets him to admit his guilt and enter a plea of guilty.

I am not seeing the evil Hillary you guys are trying to cast her as ...I get why you want it to be so...but not seeing it.

We all deserve a public defender when accused. She did her job and did it in a just way and frankly a less moral public defender could have gotten their client off of these charges rather than convince him to admit guilt.

originally posted by: Brainiac
a reply to: AshFan

Oh they gotta release that.

Never happened and AshFan has already acknowledged that there is no email where HRC calls anyone Sand-N.

Gotta let go of that hard E. R. maaan.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Indigo5

I think he might have the perfect contractor for his wall all sorted.

Do you think its okay to fence in your yard?

a reply to: Dragoon01

I live in a flat, and our communal yard is already fenced off for aesthetic purposes more than any other reason. That being said my yard is not a nation nor has it a southern border hundreds of miles long.

Do you think its even viable cost effectively and will retard the influx of refugees?

If the answer is anything but NO then you really don't understand the problems regarding construction and policing of such a structure.

Your nation would be better served simply accommodating and legalizing these supposed illegal aliens thus have them contribute and pay taxes like the rest of you citizens.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Dragoon01

I live in a flat, and our communal yard is already fenced off for aesthetic purposes more than any other reason. That being said my yard is not a nation nor has it a southern border hundreds of miles long.

Do you think its even viable cost effectively and will retard the influx of refugees?

If the answer is anything but NO then you really don't understand the problems regarding construction and policing of such a structure.

Your nation would be better served simply accommodating and legalizing these supposed illegal aliens thus have them contribute and pay taxes like the rest of you citizens.

So you agree its okay to fence off property for all manner of reasons. Good, so your little cartoon was just a BS joke and you really dont think its "racist" to desire to control access to your property. Great we are on the same page then.
A Nation is property, its a collection of property with all of the owners deciding a common set of rules and customs.
If those owners do not have a right to decide to control access then they do not have a Nation.

We don't have an influx of "refugees" we have a flow of people violating our rules and customs to come here and work. Maybe that's semantics on my part but I use the term refugee to refer to people fleeing hostilities and unrest. The vast majority of people south of the US border just want to come here and make money. That's fine but we don't have a moral obligation to accept them just because they want to work.
A majority of Americans desire to control access to our country for a lot of reasons. Economic, social and yes some of them are racists, it does not matter why, the political call is for a wall to be built.
Regarding whether it is viable, yes it is viable. Yes I do understand the costs with building and policing it.
No serious person is calling for keeping everyone out of the US, what is being called for is controlled access to ensure that the vast majority of people follow the process to gain entry into the country for temporary or permanent stays. Some people will continue to gain entry via illegal means and when they are caught they will be deported. Yes people who break the law to come into this country are illegal by definition. Again when you cant control your property lines and have no control over who visits your property then you do not have ownership of your property.

There are rumours of 6 videos to be released showing Clinton saying some similar stuff... including racially abusing a black staffer.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: Dragoon01

Building a an untenable wall and electing a racist xenophobic sexist moronic fool as POTUS of the country is hardly the answer to the woes that America faces as a nation which is plain to see for anyone with half a brain.

So i doubt we are on the same page at all. But lets face it Trump has pretty much cut with own throat with regards to becoming POTUS through his own actions.

You should probobly also consider the notion that there is no control, only the illusion of such. People are people, colour creed or nationality aside, and should be afforded the same freedoms as anyone else, even alleged illegal Mexicans.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Grambler

Thing is pointing out both candidates bad things is the correct thing to do.....I just can not understand how you all have not burnt it all down yet? I mean really Trump and Clinton? hang em and start again.

I generally don't agree with your posts but I had to give you a star for this. I think this needs to be shouted from the rooftops because it's a damn shame the 2 "major" candidates both suck so bad that "we" have to argue over who's worse.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Dragoon01

Building a an untenable wall and electing a racist xenophobic sexist moronic fool as POTUS of the country is hardly the answer to the woes that America faces as a nation which is plain to see for anyone with half a brain.

So i doubt we are on the same page at all. But lets face it Trump has pretty much cut with own throat with regards to becoming POTUS through his own actions.

You should probobly also consider the notion that there is no control, only the illusion of such. People are people, colour creed or nationality aside, and should be afforded the same freedoms as anyone else, even alleged illegal Mexicans.

Trump is going to win in a landslide. Then the wheels come off. No different than the outcome if Hillary wins, its just all a matter of timing.
There is no voting our way out of this mess. Sounds like you might be in Europe?
Storm is coming and it will engulf the entire western world so you dont get out of this thing unscathed either.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

Burning it down. For whom?

Angry expression is fine, but this is real life. For example, Trump wins and repeals the ACA. Yay! You cheer!! Me? My very ill son's life will be put in jepordy OR we will simply lose everything and be forced into poverty so he can get Medicaid. Not joking here. So go burn down your own freaking life. Leave me and mine out of it.

I am very sorry about your sons medical problems and I hope for the best for you and yours.

I'm going to make an ass out of myself but I'm going to assume your son's condition is pre-existing. If that's correct, I just gotta ask, why couldn't congress pass a simple 1 paragraph bill forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions? There's no reason every single American should have to buy health insurance or pay a tax to make that happen.

Please don't get me wrong, I was all for a single payer system in the US of A, which would have eliminated the need to buy a corp. product in the first place. Again I'm sorry for your troubles, but please don't take it out on the rest of us.

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

Burning it down. For whom?

Angry expression is fine, but this is real life. For example, Trump wins and repeals the ACA. Yay! You cheer!! Me? My very ill son's life will be put in jepordy OR we will simply lose everything and be forced into poverty so he can get Medicaid. Not joking here. So go burn down your own freaking life. Leave me and mine out of it.

I'm going to make an ass out of myself but I'm going to assume your son's condition is pre-existing. If that's correct, I just gotta ask, why couldn't congress pass a simple 1 paragraph bill forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions? There's no reason every single American should have to buy health insurance or pay a tax to make that happen.

Right...that was the original idea...but The GOP/Insurance Companies complained it would be too expensive for them...all those people signing up with pre-existing conditions....so they demanded the "Mandate" that everyone get insurance with the idea that they would make the money up by all the healthy younger folks having to buy insurance.

Which kind of makes sense..

a reply to: Indigo5

It does make sense, if profits are all you care about.

I'm of the opinion that insurance is something you buy "in case" things go wrong. "Health insurance" is something every citizen needs when they get older and may even need when they're younger.

I know Obama wanted single payer as well, at least on the campaign trail. That's why I voted for him in '08 and didn't in '12 (well one of the reasons). I hate that the GOP was one of the biggest blocks to getting single payer, but the Dems saying we have to pass it to see what's in it is just ridiculous. It was a clusterf**k from the beginning with lobbying money dirtying the water even more that it had to be.

OMG if anyone put a recorder in my car they would be shocked at how many different ways i can use that word.

a reply to: Dragoon01

I'm actually in the UK so you are correct in thinking that its just as screwed over here as in the US. Trump wont win through, hes just not got the mentality or brains for the position. And ile tell you this if he miraculously somehow came back and people decided to overlook his wrong doings, debauchery, and race hate opinionated bull crap Putin would have him for breakfast.

There is no "unscathed" to be had with political candidates such as Trump and Clinton in the running for the position of POTUS only the choice of the lesser of two evils.

a reply to: thov420

There is a case to be made that Pres. Obama and the Dems knew Obamacare was a flawed prototype at best and would need fixing. Most acknowledge the same. what I think they misjudged is that the GOP would refuse to tweak any part of it for 6 years in hopes that the loose-bolts would fall out at some point...and we will be there soon. It needs fixing.