The Elephant in the Room

[whitenemesis]

Well I guess in the land of the free, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

irrespective of that, the link does explain how the US government works. Which actually makes it impossible for corporations to control it.

Still, you can't make people believe something they don't want to hear can you?

Pardon???

 

[Scott_F]

So who actually rules the American people?

Big Business via their lobbyists and their "cooperative" Senators and Congressmen.

Some of our esteemed members on here do not seem to believe that America is governed by the people and for the people.

If it was as simple as that then America wouldn't be the most polarised and unequal society in the developed world.

 

[HB]

Some of our esteemed members on here do not seem to believe that America is governed by the people and for the people.

For a well educated man, that's very naive. I'm surprised at you.


Halliburton has more power than many Senators combined.

 

[Druk]

For a well educated man, that's very naive. I'm surprised at you.


Halliburton has more power than many Senators combined.

I suspect it was a whoooosh Harry.

 

[markjay]

For a well educated man, that's very naive. I'm surprised at you.

Halliburton has more power than many Senators combined.

No country - or indeed society - has managed yet to completely sever the ties between power and money.

The unhealthy links between wealthy individuals and politicians are well documented. Closer to home some will say that our honours and peerage systems have often been abused to this effect.

I have no doubt that this sort of undesirable influence by interested parties does exist across the developed world including in the US, UK and European countries.

But my personal belief if that in West these are relatively marginal, definitely compared to other countries such as Russia or China where corruption in public office is the norm. In China, even dishing out the death penalty to corrupt officials did not stop this epidemic. And in Russia one could write books (and many did) about Putin and his billionaire oligarch friends.

So will interested parties lobby and derail policies which would have otherwise been for the public good? Or try and dictate their own policies? Yes they will try, and sometimes succeed. But is this the essence of the US Administration? I think not.

 

[The _Don]

US politics: approved by Admin for human consumption.

Interesting.......

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Anger against the bourgeoisie "liberal elite" who enjoy sneering at the indigenous and those on the bottom rung is even more vociferous and vicious over the pond than here and it could result in a Trump victory, even as bad as he is.

Also having read Hilary's past skeletons (defending a child rapist in court and laughing about it later, going after her husbands accusers with no mercy) shows her up to be far from whiter than white.

I suppose at least with Trump; wysiwyg, warts and all.

 

[grober]

As usual with TRUMP's accusations its innaccurate. Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton laughed at child rape victim Kathy Shelton. That's not quite right | The Independent
She may have vigourously defended her husband [ father of Chelsea their daughter which may have played a part ? ] but what was she expected to do? While her husbands sexual peccadillos were deplorable it would appear that the young women involved were willing if misguided participants at the time . Trumps conduct by his own admission amounted to sexual assault. The difference encapsulated by the word--- consent!

In terms of sneering at the poor and indigenous its pretty obvious from his remarks about coloured and latino people that Trump is highly selective about his concern for the "disenfrancised" of America. I genuinely feel sorry for that group of people who see him as some sort of saviour as they are destined to be disappointed in the event of his electoral success. Trump uses people as a commodity to be cast aside when they are no longer of use to him- that's his track record. Its not going to change.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

As usual with TRUMP's accusations its innaccurate. Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton laughed at child rape victim Kathy Shelton. That's not quite right | The Independent

You're trying to split hairs, here are quotes from your own linked article:

"Despite her discomfort with the case, Clinton aggressively defended her client. In an affidavit to the court, she said a child psychologist had told her that children "from disorganized families," such as the victim, "tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."

"According to audio of an interview Clinton gave to a reporter one decade later, Clinton suggested she believed her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty"

"But she did laugh at procedural errors in the case"

I say that anyone who defends a nonce believing they are guilty makes them as bad as the perpetrator.

She may have vigourously defended her husband [ father of Chelsea their daughter which may have played a part ? ] but what was she expected to do? While her husbands sexual peccadillos were deplorable it would appear that the young women involved were willing if misguided participants at the time.

She didn't just "vigorously defend" her husband, she went after his former lovers with smear campaigns, trying to besmirch their characters. Big difference.

In terms of sneering at the poor and indigenous its pretty obvious from his remarks about coloured and latino people that Trump is highly selective about his concern for the "disenfrancised" of America. I genuinely feel sorry for that group of people who see him as some sort of saviour as they are destined to be disappointed in the event of his electoral success. Trump uses people as a commodity to be cast aside when they are no longer of use to him- that's his track record. Its not going to change.

The democrats take the black and Latino votes for granted, a lot like a certain British political party took their traditional voters for granted (and we all know how that ended up). Obama has had two terms in office and he leaves with a big chunk of the black population turning to civil disobedience because they're disenfranchised. But I'm sure that's not down to him...

I'm giving an opinion on the wave of popularity that is driving all this and not saying all this to promote Trump, I said years ago when he'd been welcomed with open arms north of the border with his golf course that he's a bullying ****, a terrible man, but at least he doesn't hide it, in fact he wears it on his sleeve which can't be said of Clinton.

 

[markjay]

.."According to audio of an interview Clinton gave to a reporter one decade later, Clinton suggested she believed her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty"

"But she did laugh at procedural errors in the case".....

What about attorney-client confidentiality? Making this statement sounds to me like yet another error of judgment.

 

[WDB124066]

Early Voting Could Hand Election to Clinton Before Nov. 8

 

[grober]

You're trying to split hairs, here are quotes from your own linked article:

"Despite her discomfort with the case, Clinton aggressively defended her client. In an affidavit to the court, she said a child psychologist had told her that children "from disorganized families," such as the victim, "tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."

"According to audio of an interview Clinton gave to a reporter one decade later, Clinton suggested she believed her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty"

"But she did laugh at procedural errors in the case"

I say that anyone who defends a nonce believing they are guilty makes them as bad as the perpetrator.


She didn't just "vigorously defend" her husband, she went after his former lovers with smear campaigns, trying to besmirch their characters. Big difference.


The democrats take the black and Latino votes for granted, a lot like a certain British political party took their traditional voters for granted (and we all know how that ended up). Obama has had two terms in office and he leaves with a big chunk of the black population turning to civil disobedience because they're disenfranchised. But I'm sure that's not down to him...

I'm giving an opinion on the wave of popularity that is driving all this and not saying all this to promote Trump, I said years ago when he'd been welcomed with open arms north of the border with his golf course that he's a bullying ****, a terrible man, but at least he doesn't hide it, in fact he wears it on his sleeve which can't be said of Clinton.

I will try to answer these points as best I can. First the trial.

According to both Clinton in a recorded interview and corroborated later by statements by the prosecutor who handled the case, Clinton asked not to be assigned to defend the attacker of Kathy Shelton, but ultimately Clinton agreed to defend the man at the judge's insistence.

So when forced to take on the task as defending council despite her obvious distaste she did her job. I think that's what a defence council is supposed to do---represent their client- not act a judge and jury. If you go down that route you are on very dodgy ground.
The case was lost due to a misstep by the prosecution that broke in favour of Clinton's client. The crime lab in the case lost a swatch of the victim's underwear that the prosecution had said contained Taylor's semen and the victim's blood. Clinton seized on the mistake, arguing that the absence of evidence fatally undermined the prosecution's case -- prompting the prosecutor to offer Clinton's client a plea deal to a lesser charge.
She did her job. She didn't win the case the prosecution lost it

In terms of her besmirching the characters of her husbands lovers I very much doubt any middle aged married woman would feel kindly disposed towards any younger women who had thrown themselves at your husband and might question their motivation in revealing all later. Doesn't make it right but makes it understandable.

Obama failed to deliver on his electoral promises for two main reasons. He inherited a financial meltdown in the economy and shortly after his election the democrats lost their majority in congress meaning the republican party blocked most the legislation he had promised in his electoral campaign.

In terms of getting what you see with Trump the opposite is true- the man lies constantly about everything including himself. The sad thing is many Americans believe the lies.
Don't get me wrong Hilary Clinton is no saint she is a politician after all, but so is Donald Trump despite his protests to the contrary. Of the two Clinton represents the lesser of 2 evils by far IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I don't disagree that Clinton is the lesser of the two evils, I disagree with your attempts to sprinkle sugar on the darker side of her public persona; nobody put a gun to her head to represent that dirty nonce, she did it and then got the ******* off on a technicality which tells you all you need to know about her morals.

 

[scumbag]

I don't disagree that Clinton is the lesser of the two evils, I disagree with your attempts to sprinkle sugar on the darker side of her public persona; nobody put a gun to her head to represent that dirty nonce, she did it and then got the ******* off on a technicality which tells you all you need to know about her morals.

I am unsure if doing her job as she was expected and to the fullest extent of the law suggests the has dodgy morals.

Irrespective of your views, EVERYONE deserves to be represented fully in law. No exceptions.

unless you are an advocate of a flawed legal system. In which case, crack on. Let's shoot them all and let God sort them out.

 

[renault12ts]

I don't disagree that Clinton is the lesser of the two evils, I disagree with your attempts to sprinkle sugar on the darker side of her public persona; nobody put a gun to her head to represent that dirty nonce, she did it and then got the ******* off on a technicality which tells you all you need to know about her morals.

Lee, I'm surprised at you.

Everyone is entitled to a defence. She did her job. Winning the case absolutely doesn't tell you all you need to know about her or any other defence lawyer. If the prosecutor had not cocked up then she, and any other defence lawyer, would be arguing mitigation not innocence, and the effect would have been on the length of the sentence.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Let's shoot them all

Not all, just the paedophiles and their apologists.

 

[scumbag]

Not all, just the paedophiles and their apologists.

Hello Donald.

 

[renault12ts]

Not all, just the paedophiles and their apologists.

Where a defendant cannot get a lawyer the court appoints a lawyer...they are hardly apologists. There would be no need for a trial otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Everyone is entitled to a defence. She did her job.

She knew what he'd done, she knew he was guilty and admitted so much later by saying she didn't believe lie-detectors because that nonce had passed one, what does that tell you?! And from what I recall a lawyer is not allowed to represent someone they know is guilty.

The fact she got him off on a technicality so he could more than likely carry on offending says as much about the defence as it does the prosecution as well.

 

[renault12ts]

Which is worse...the guilty getting off, or the innocent being convicted?

Donald likes the latter.