Trump vs Clinton. Biggest debate in world history 2am tomorrow. Will you be there?

[claig]

The entire world's movers and shakers, swindlers and fakers, public money piss-takers will be watching in trepidation at what Trump will do to them. The entire world's great and the good, high and the mighty, shifty and flighty will be supporting Hillary. Will you be with the people supporting Trump?

Have you got the ice cream, the chocolate, the biscuits and the matchsticks to keep the eyelids open ready?

As a warm-up, here is Sky News's 30 minute documentary shown last night

"Trump. Could it really happen?"

'The victim gave an interview in 2014 because right wing journalists decided to wind her up. '

The Daily Beast is left wing.

This is ridiculous. None of these accounts are contradictory. In a passing comment in an interview about the case as a whole, Hillary says that she was asked to take the case as a favour. In a different interview the very prosecutor who asked the favour said that Hillary agreed to do the favour reluctantly after he reminded her that ultimately it was a judicial request. In a third interview a Fox News "journalist" (completely unrelated to the case) has stated that Hillary took the case "voluntarily" which is also technically true. She wasn't compelled by law to take the case but that doesn't at all contradict the fact that she would have found it difficult to turn it down. This is a complete non-story.

The victim didn't think it was a non-story. Read the full article to see.

“It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” she said. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”
...
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?”

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

But it won't be mentioned in the debates or in the media. It is a non-story for them because she is Clinton.

'According to Ann Coulter, also a lawyer, the girl was in a coma for 5 days.

That would be Ann Coulter, who is known to be an ultra right wing bigot who wouldn't know the truth if it hit her in the face. '

Read the Daily Beast article. It is all in there.

I find the case sad too. But in the US judicial system, even rapist and murderers must be defended. It's part of the process. For me, the question isn't, "did Hillary Clinton defend a low life early in her career?", but rather, "how has she tried to change the system itself over the past 40 years?"

Lawyers in the US are not judges nor are they juries. They have a moral obligation to make sure everyone is defended so that the system can work.

The laws and procedures regarding rape cases have changed since 1975, thank goodness.

'But in the US judicial system, even rapist and murderers must be defended. It's part of the process. For me, the question isn't, "did Hillary Clinton defend a low life early in her career?'

If you read the Daily Beast article you can see the careful wording that is often used by spinners etc

“Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”

The office of Hillary Clinton did not respond to a request for comment. In a 2008 article in Newsday written by Glenn Thrush, now at Politico, Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson defended her conduct in the case.

“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”

It is right that she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law once she was representing him, but I think there is a valid question about did she have to represent him or did she choose to.

If you read the article and what happened, would you choose to represent him or would you only do so if you were forced to?

This story has been going around again and again. It is very old news and it has been debunked numerous times.

It does nothing. To distract from Trump's dreadful performance on the debate. He came across as inarticulate, unintelligent, and ill prepared.

I agree a lot of common people in the US badly need a shake up of the system. Sadly, Trump isn't competent to do it.

It's a non-story in terms of being a stick to beat Clinton with. Lawyers all over the world take unpopular cases. It is the honourable and ethical thing to do. The fact that Trump and his supporters think it shouldn't happen tells us much more about them than it does about Clinton.

Clinton set out the facts in 2003, well before this even became an issue. Her version of the facts is supported by independent evidence. Full stop.

Read the Daily Beast article. It is all in there.

That doesn't make it true, nor does it make Ann Coulter any less of a lying bigot.

I totally agree EllyMay

Of course. If rapists were being defended by any poster here the Hillary supporters would be up in arms. Gotta love the hypocrisy

Rapists must to have legal representation in the law courts speakergirl.. It would not be a fair process if we summarily decided some people were guilty and refused them legal representation.

Do me another favour speaker

Find anything that says i am a clinton supporter

In fact i am not sure i have said anything against trump on here either

I only came on the thread because i thought you were telling the truth about clinton...and you weren't

Let me make it clear for you ...she was a lawyer, sometimes lawyers have to represent scumbags

Well I long for a world where lawyers only represent innocent people. Because everything would be much better.
Oh - no I don't - because I am not stupid.
And - when exactly did this atrocity happen? Last week? Last year? Last century? And has Hillary, in the meantime, been making a habit of defending rapists for the fun of it?
Hardly. She has been a serious politician. And Trump has been an inept businessman and a lying, racist, despicable, misogynist, ignorant buffoon.

Interesting Facebook meme. I don't know how to post the picture, but this is what it says:

"Imagine a woman who showed up (to a presidential debate) unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Let's further imagine that she's had five kids by three men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes. She has never held any elected office in her life."

How much credibility would we give her? Do we imagine she'd be allowed to run for office in the first place?

Oh yes LadyConstance sums it up really.

Just for you Claig .

You talk about humour on this thread and having a good laugh at all of this. Well, this one has had me having a good ole belly laugh. This is Trump's voters. This isn't skewed facts and figures, opinions, the press view. This is real people. 'Nuff said!

Ann counter actually wrote something quite telling. Trump supporters do not care about his personal failings - the man will be dead in ten years, he doesn't matter that much. They see it as an existential fight for the USA, it's not a battle for the next four years but the next four hundred. Many people fear a deeply dystopian future. They see clinton as facilitating that.

It is all about Mitt Romney. Nothing to do with Trump. It is a video created about the Romney-Obama election in 2014. Nothing to do with Trump.

You don't agree that these people would be Trump voters?

Strange.

'Trump supporters do not care about his personal failings - the man will be dead in ten years,'

Trump said that when he wins, we will have 4 to 8 years of Trump turning the country round, bringing jobs back, increasing wages, sorting out crime, ending the control of lobbyists buying corrupt politicians, ending wars etc etc, but after that they will probably all come back, all the usual bought and paid for politicians and then things will return to how they were before Trump. So in the long run, the people will lose because even though Trump may defeat the crooks and Crooked Hillary now, they will all be back when Trump leaves in 4 to 8 years time.

So in the long run, the people will always lose because the money will beat us.

Trump fans don't care about Trump's personal failings because they hope he has the ability to kick ass and beat the crooks for at least 4 to 8 years.

'You don't agree that these people would be Trump voters?'

Yes they probably would. They supported Romney, so they would probably support Trump.

But Dr Martin Luther King's niece supports Trump as does boxing promoter Don King and the "Stump for Trump Sisters" and Dr Ben Carson, so those Romney supporters are only a small proportion of voters who support Trump.

Although things are starting to look bad for Trump now. The debate was disappointing. Clinton's team suckered Trump in and he is on teh defensive about minor issues like tax returns etc and his insulting language when Clinton is getting away with huge scandals and Trump doesn't want to "hurt feelings".

As Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist said on Fox News last night, Trump has been promising us for months that he is not like the politicians, that only he has the courage to take the crooks on and that only he will expose the Clintons and go for the jugular and Mollie said that now he has to "put up or shut up". She said in the debate he "shut up", so she said he now has to "put up". She thinks he will have to deliver because this strategy of him being on the ropes about his insulting language while Hillary looks like a saint is making Trump look weak and a bullshitter about taking on the Establishment.

Trump is not attacking Clinton, he is having a go at Google. We all know about Google, Facebook, the media and all he rest, but Trump is in a contest with Clinton who is being helped by the media, but he now has to "put up".

I am not sure he will "put up" in which case it may all be a reality TV entertainment show and the Establishment will have the last laugh as the people are defeated once again.

Here is Dr Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, endorsing Trump

And here is a pretty good rant by boxing promoter Don King who supports Trump and explains what the battle of the people with the elites is all about

Interesting claim about Trump potentially having violated the Cuban embargo.