Donald Trump

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

Now that last one really confused me, and I could pull up a couple examples of what I mean specifically. It sounded like she lost her train of thought mid-sentence, but kept going with the answer despite not knowing what she was saying anymore. How that's possible without some form of outside aid I don't know.

.

Even if she did have someone feeding her lines, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. If a leader delegates the whole "thinking on one's feet" thing to a subordinate, then that's fine if, and only if, the subordinate is good at it and the output is still of high quality. I evaluate the organisation's ability to think on its feet, with courage and intelligence and without missing a beat. Earpieces or no earpieces, stammering out the words like you don't know what they mean is concerning.

I thought Trump won the debate.

I don't see what the big deal is about the comments he made 11 years ago. That's typical banter that heterosexual males engage in with each other. And most men know it. Most reasonable people aren't gonna hold that against him. But some eccentric cat lady might. I actually like Trump even more after hearing those remarks. Billionaire or not, he's just another one of the guys. *fist bump*.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I don't see what the big deal is about the comments he made 11 years ago. That's typical banter that heterosexual males engage in with each other. And most men know it. Most reasonable people aren't gonna hold that against him. But some eccentric cat lady might.

A great many self-appointed gentlemen have gone to great effort to ensure the women in their lives don't know about it. I initially underestimated the Religious Right and their sense of chivalry in my anticipation of the fallout from the Billy Bush tape, and I feel you have, too.

The tape isn't a bomb on George Carlin conservatives; we don't take lewd words seriously. But it has certainly rocked the pro-life, marriage-til-death crowd.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The tape isn't a bomb on George Carlin conservatives; we don't take lewd words seriously. But it has certainly rocked the pro-life, marriage-til-death crowd.

Yeah christlings might take offense to it, but I've also heard some of the most holier than thou people make comments not unlike Trump's. They might have to agree with their wives and criticize Trump, but I doubt that will suddenly make them vote for Clinton at the ballot box.

Clinton defended a child rapist, and laughed about it. I got a sick sense of humor as well, but it has limits. Laughing about something like that is way over the line. That's a far worse transgression IMO than what Trump said 11 years ago. Child rapists are viewed as "scum of the Earth" by normal people.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Clinton defended a child rapist, and laughed about it. I got a sick sense of humor as well, but it has limits. Laughing about something like that is way over the line. That's a far worse transgression IMO than what Trump said 11 years ago. Child rapists are viewed as "scum of the Earth" by normal people.

Really? Listen to it (again).

Quoting from the tape:

"

CLINTON: I had some really tough clients... a prosecutor called me years ago, said he had a guy who was accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer... would I do it as a favor to him?

So she agreed to act as a defense attorney for this guy, because someone needed to defend him. That's how our courts work, and it's not evil or wrong to do that job.

"

CLINTON: Of course he claimed that he didn't [rape her]... He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [Laughs].

This is the only laugh of Clinton's in the interview. Do you really think she's laughing at rape here?

"

CLINTON: I said "what kind of evidence is that?" You know, a pair of underpants with a hole in it. Course the crime lab had thrown away... the piece that they'd cut out. I mean I plea bargained it down because it turned out they didn't have any evidence.

So first, it's not like this guy escaped punishment. He's a convicted rapist; he pleaded guilty to rape.

Second, he probably shouldn't have been convicted at all. It's sad that the authorities were buffoons and threw away evidence key to the prosecution, but they did. The state couldn't make its case against this man. And yet Ms. Clinton advises her client to accept a plea bargain despite full knowledge of the prosecution's compromised position? What kind of defense attorney is that?

"

CLINTON: [The client] was one of these rootless folks who wasn't going to make a living on the land and he was kind of around... ended up in Springdale. [Unintelligible muttering]

Apparently the kind of defense attorney who, given a client accused of rape who passes a polygraph test and has no evidence against him, automatically assumes his guilt despite his claims to the contrary, simply because he's a drifter. Fucking hobos, amirite?

So, yes, the laugh raises my ire, too. Yes, there is something sinister about it. But the issue isn't laughing at rape. It's laughing at the rights of the accused, coming from the person charged with defending them. And when considering someone running for public office, that's arguably worse. Hilary doesn't care about your civil liberties and will wave them off with a chuckle as she pursues her own self-serving agenda.

Wew lads, Trump lied again! Maybe Hillary downloaded BleachBit and deleted the emails by pure coincidence? The poor old lady can't into computers after all.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

3) Sounded like she had lost her place on a teleprompter, stringing words together that make sense on paper but with halting and unnatural intonation totally obscuring the meaning


Now that last one really confused me, and I could pull up a couple examples of what I mean specifically. It sounded like she lost her train of thought mid-sentence, but kept going with the answer despite not knowing what she was saying anymore. How that's possible without some form of outside aid I don't know.

It *might* be scanning, or Dysarthria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysarthria

On the other hand, it could just be she was processing a lot of possible answers and responses and her brain shifted the focus on that and away from the speech center. The studies on why and how many people often pause their speech with 'Uhh and uhmms" show that the thought to speech process is extremely complex. It isn't just a matter of throat buzzing, exhalation and manipulating mouth parts, but rather a complex dance in which some of the neural signals arrive out of the order they need to be delivered and have to be resorted.

We tend to take speech for granted because we've learned it and practice it continuously.

I noticed it, but considering the stress level both sides were under, the number of possible ways they could respond, and trying to gauge how their responses might be interpreted, I figured Hillary was just trying to figure out which response would be best.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So first, it's not like this guy escaped punishment.

"Taylor pleaded down to 'unlawful fondling of a minor' and served less than a year in prison"

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Second, he probably shouldn't have been convicted at all.

There were reportedly witnesses. Whether the jury would have found him innocent or guilty, it is hard to say. Witnesses were still considered extremely important at the time the case was prosecuted.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So, yes, the laugh raises my ire, too. Yes, there is something sinister about it. But the issue isn't laughing at rape. It's laughing at the rights of the accused, coming from the person charged with defending them. And when considering someone running for public office, that's arguably worse. Hilary doesn't care about your civil liberties and will wave them off with a chuckle as she pursues her own self-serving agenda.

Polygraph and botched evidence aside, her approach was pure attack dog. IIRC, Kathleen Shelton needed 14 stitches, ended up in a coma, and was never able to have kids afterwards because of the physical injuries suffered during the rape.

OK - couldn't find the 14 stitches detail:

"'When I came out of the coma, I had several stitches down there. They tore me up bad,' she said. 'The doctors said there was a 99 percent chance I couldn't have kids. I have been with a couple men after that, it took me a long time to grow there. But I never had any kids.'

As a result of the attack, Shelton said doctors told her it was unlikely she would ever be able to have children. She said she was devastated by the prognosis.

'When I was younger I really wanted a kid so bad,' said Shelton, who has never had children. 'I love kids."


"Shelton said Clinton accused her during the case of 'seeking out older men', and demanded that the 12-year-old undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine whether she was 'mentally unstable'.

During the case, Clinton accused the 12-year-old of 'seek[ing] out older men' and 'engag[ing] in fantasizing' in court affidavits

One of Clinton's first moves was to raise questions about the credibility of the 12-year-old victim.

In a July 18, 1975, affidavit, Clinton asked the court to order Shelton to undergo a psychiatric examination from a doctor selected by the Taylor's legal team.
The evaluation was necessary, she argued, because Shelton was 'emotionally unstable.'

'I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,' wrote Clinton. 'I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.'

The 12-year-old girl also 'exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way', argued Clinton.