Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
OverSword

1 Risk of Hilary being president

101 posts in this topic

Just thought of this and decided to put it out there. If you can think of additional risks post them

Risk: National Security.

Hilary is still married to Bill. The 1st husband may be exposed to sensitive information. Who's to say that the woman he's sleeping with this week isn't a spy? You shouldn't elect someone to the office of president if you can't trust their spouse. Which begs the question, knowing Hilarys past in the watergate impeachment how did Bill ever get into office. It was obvious to anyone doing a bit of research that she has large moral failings.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that she will be anointed for the job by the press just as BHO was. Barring some miracle she will be the next president because the scales have tipped now in favor of those who expect handouts vs those who just want to work. Sad but true. The only saving grace I see is that she won't be able to continue the spending BHO has been doing. The world won't allow it. She is a disgrace to this country for allowing Benghazi then covering it up. Several of BHO's top admin officials SHOULD go to jail but they never will.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought of this and decided to put it out there. If you can think of additional risks post them

Risk: National Security.

Hilary is still married to Bill. The 1st husband may be exposed to sensitive information. Who's to say that the woman he's sleeping with this week isn't a spy? You shouldn't elect someone to the office of president if you can't trust their spouse. Which begs the question, knowing Hilarys past in the watergate impeachment how did Bill ever get into office. It was obvious to anyone doing a bit of research that she has large moral failings.

Thoughts?

And this is different to when Bill was President how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how is it different from when anyone, ever, was president? any number of presidents and people in positions of power have had affairs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it doesn't make any difference really does it, the President is an increasingly marginalised figureheard. I'm sure they take very great care to make sure that he or perhaps even she really know nothing of any importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it doesn't make any difference really does it, the President is an increasingly marginalised figureheard. I'm sure they take very great care to make sure that he or perhaps even she really know nothing of any importance.

It does, because it's quite the opposite of how you describe. Presidents are now cyclones of raw power spinning dangerously out of control. Some future President is likely going to (accidentally) start WW3 over delusions of grandeur that they have authority if they can imagine they do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. O is a cyclone of raw power? He couldn't get support for intervention in Syria, the entire Government was shut down fairly recently due to party bickering, and he's so far pursuing his usual policy of dithering ineffectually over Iraq. If he is waiting his time before unleashing this cyclone of raw power he's leaving it late enough.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Moral failings? Absolutely. It goes way back to 1975 as a young lawyer where not only did she defend an accused rapist, she knew he was guilty and she smeared the victim, a 12 year old girl, in the court room. Years later in an interview she went on to laugh about the time she lost faith in polygraphs when her defendant beat it. Here's one article recapping the events. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-1975-arkansas-rape-victim-speaks-108124.html Oh the war on women. It so often seems that those who cast stones are the ones most guilty of their accusations...

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral failings? Absolutely. It goes way back to 1975 as a young lawyer where not only did she defend an accused rapist, she knew he was guilty and she smeared the victim, a 12 year old girl, in the court room. Years later in an interview she went on to laugh about the time she lost faith in polygraphs when her defendant beat it. Here's one article recapping the events. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-1975-arkansas-rape-victim-speaks-108124.html Oh the war on women. It so often seems that those who cast stones are the ones most guilty of their accusations...

Isn't it a lawyers job to defend their client? Makes sense she would want to win. What should she have done, just came in and said that her client was guilty?

I hate rapists and think they're the lowest form of human scum btw, but it was just her job. I could see this one being used by Fox News as a headline for months and months during election time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how is it different from when anyone, ever, was president? any number of presidents and people in positions of power have had affairs.

It's different because we know for a fact that Bill is a cheating philanderer. People addicted to sex are security risks. None of the others was it a proven fact beforehand and possibly not after either. Who were either of the Bush's having affairs with? Reagan? Carter? See? This is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. O is a cyclone of raw power? He couldn't get support for intervention in Syria, the entire Government was shut down fairly recently due to party bickering, and he's so far pursuing his usual policy of dithering ineffectually over Iraq. If he is waiting his time before unleashing this cyclone of raw power he's leaving it late enough.

This was only after he had had abused his power to the point where it was hard for him to get support. "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" If that wasn't nothing but political muscle flexing I don't know what is. Had he not pushed so hard and so often likely we would have been in Syria and likely soon will be anyway.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it a lawyers job to defend their client? Makes sense she would want to win. What should she have done, just came in and said that her client was guilty?

I hate rapists and think they're the lowest form of human scum btw, but it was just her job. I could see this one being used by Fox News as a headline for months and months during election time.

So you admit that she is the lowest form of human scum. Would you vote for her to president? Likely.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's different because we know for a fact that Bill is a cheating philanderer. People addicted to sex are security risks. None of the others was it a proven fact beforehand and possibly not after either. Who were either of the Bush's having affairs with? Reagan? Carter? See? This is different.

jfk had multiple affairs. johnson likely did as well. that's off the top of my head.

you're saying that because clinton might still be having affairs, hilary might share important information with him, and then he might share that information with said theoretical mistress, who might be a spy.

yeah, i'm not going to spend too much time worrying about this.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. O is a cyclone of raw power? He couldn't get support for intervention in Syria, the entire Government was shut down fairly recently due to party bickering, and he's so far pursuing his usual policy of dithering ineffectually over Iraq. If he is waiting his time before unleashing this cyclone of raw power he's leaving it late enough.

Collecting billions of email and phone call records, sentencing suspects without trial, indefinite detention, torture, rendition, starting wars without Congress, violating the War Powers Resolution by completely ignoring it, appointing central banksters to control the money supply, inflation, interest rates, and party favorites in the marketplace. If you don't understand the Executive Branch has gotten completely out of hand, you must not even hear yourself talk about the 'Forces of Light' on a regular basis. Is it just a big joke but there's nothing really wrong with it to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit that she is the lowest form of human scum. Would you vote for her to president? Likely.

Rapists are, not those who's duty as a lawyer it is defend them. I didn't "admit" that she was. You think she likes defending rapists?

Yes, I would vote for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The funny part about this thread is that it mentions erections opps, elections. Its a one party system lol

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The job of a defense attorney in the US system is to do everything legally possible to exonerate the client, and personal opinion is not relevant. This has the unfortunate effect of making the defense bar into hired mouthpieces, and the better you are at getting clients off the more money you make. There are attorneys who are selective about this, but most couldn't care less and have the defendant's "right to counsel" at hand to justify their attitude.

Systems elsewhere often take a different tack -- that the job of all the officers of the court is to bring out the truth. In such systems juries may not even be present. Instead professional tribunals question the parties and have their own independent staffs to investigate matters, and defense attorneys can be hired but have little power except the right to try to put the defendant's situation clearly. However, this is redundant since the tribunals tend to do that automatically anyway (they are not an arm of the police).

I think in the end this latter system is more efficient and ends up with the right result far more often. Face it, juries can and often are incredibly easily fooled.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collecting billions of email and phone call records, sentencing suspects without trial, indefinite detention, torture, rendition, starting wars without Congress, violating the War Powers Resolution by completely ignoring it, appointing central banksters to control the money supply, inflation, interest rates, and party favorites in the marketplace. If you don't understand the Executive Branch has gotten completely out of hand, you must not even hear yourself talk about the 'Forces of Light' on a regular basis. Is it just a big joke but there's nothing really wrong with it to you?

But all that was exclusively initiated by the Big O, and was never done by any of his predecessors? All that has very little to do with whoever may be in the Big chair, all that's evidence of government that's got out of control, and I'd absolutely agree there. To insist that it's all because of this particularly dictatorial President is rather to overlook the way that Government's got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all that was exclusively initiated by the Big O, and was never done by any of his predecessors? All that has very little to do with whoever may be in the Big chair, all that's evidence of government that's got out of control, and I'd absolutely agree there. To insist that it's all because of this particularly dictatorial President is rather to overlook the way that Government's got.

I didn't even say Obama's name. There's nothing exclusive about Obama at all. Like I said, it's the Executive Branch.

Congress has almost the opposite problem in that it's sold its power where it doesn't belong. Congress has shirked its responsibility and handed war making powers over to the President even though there is no allowance in our Constitution for govt to subvert it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neocons and liberals seem to think that the Constitution says: "Do this, unless you make up another way to do it and do that instead." Politicians and bureaucrats need to understand that the rule of law isn't multiple choice.

Govt officials are off the rails in this country. They think "If I don't want to do what the Constitution says, I can ignore it and follow some newer lesser law instead!" No, popularity contest winners, you cannot. You follow the Constitution along with additional measures if necessary. But you cannot legally subvert or substitute the Constitution with other measures. Don't like what ya gotta do under the rule of law? Then either Amend it, or go sulk in a corner.

People from the Bush administration might have wound up in jail for the bloody mess they made, but Obama gave Bush a full pardon in all but writing. Nice work protecting our ruling class btw. Obama's a smooth guy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda think you mistake things here, or distort them. Bush has not been charged with any illegality and people allege all sorts of things, and Obama has not "pardoned" anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda think you mistake things here, or distort them. Bush has not been charged with any illegality and people allege all sorts of things, and Obama has not "pardoned" anyone.

Well, of course not. It would take an international court to do that, and do you think any of those is ever going to be able to challenge any US president or ex President? US courts could use the tool of impeachment of course, but that's only used for really, really serious offenses like curious stains on dresses. :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing to pardon him from. Which is the pardon I'm referring to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course not. It would take an international court to do that, and do you think any of those is ever going to be able to challenge any US president or ex President? US courts could use the tool of impeachment of course, but that's only used for really, really serious offenses like curious stains on dresses. :unsure2:

I think using legal process to punish political enemies is a dangerous two-sided street, even if they are guilty. I don't know that it should never be used, but sheesh what a can of worms one opens, that can end up destroying a society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, I get she was a lawyer with a job but she could've defended the guy without resorting to smear tactics against a 12 year old girl while Hilary looked in her the eyes knowing she really was raped. Freaking character attack against a child rape victim. Job or not it takes a real low moral compass to not only do something like that but laugh about it in hindsight as she did in later interviews.

How could you vote for that? What if that girl was your sister or daughter? Maybe you need to pretend it's personal to understand what a lowlife Hilary is.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.