Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.

[AI Wessex]

The argument is the press conceals info when it suits them and releases it when it suits them.

Right, but why wouldn't the press, which spans the entire political spectrum, have released this information when it could have hurt him?  The only reason Drudge would dredge it up now is to cast suspicion on Hillary indirectly and attempt to negate the claims of sexual harassment against Trump.  It's getting sick out there, and Cherry is loving every minute of it.

[D.W.]

Or... as a smoke screen.  Here!  Shiny thing look!  Quit looking over there.  This can (also or rather?) be an attack on Obama's soaring approval rating.

It's been "sick out there" for a long time.  Partisan news is partisan... shocking!

[cherrypoptart]

 "It's getting sick out there, and Cherry is loving every minute of it."

Should I assume since you said it's getting sick out there that means you found the Obama video?

Now if Trump or McCain or Bush or Romney had something like that caught on camera do you think the media would have hidden it for 8 years?

They wouldn't have hidden it for 8 seconds.

[AI Wessex]

"It's getting sick out there, and Cherry is loving every minute of it."

Should I assume since you said it's getting sick out there that means you found the Obama video?

Now if Trump or McCain or Bush or Romney had something like that caught on camera do you think the media would have hidden it for 8 years?

They wouldn't have hidden it for 8 seconds.

Cherry, what relevance does any dirt on Obama's past have on Clinton's candidacy?

[cherrypoptart]

It's evidence that the media is covering for her just like they did for him.

I'm pretty sure we can close that case now and slam the gavel on it.

[D.W.]

I suspect your assertion is correct cherry, but I can't help but be nauseated by this use of the word "evidence".  That's the kind of thing that makes it so easy to defend Hillary on partisan grounds alone.  That's NOT how things work! 

[AI Wessex]

It's evidence that the media is covering for her just like they did for him.

.  You should look up the definition for "evidence" and since you'll have the dictionary open, check out "xenophobia" while you're there.

[cherrypoptart]

There was a plane full of press who caught video of Obama sexually harassing everyone there and nobody has seen that tape until just now, eight years later. It's on youtube. Unless you think the tape is doctored, that's evidence.

[D.W.]

Evidence OF... 
Hint:  nothing to do with Hillary.   
Probably evidence the media is capable of hiding her skeletons.  I'd go that far at least.

[DonaldD]

Cherry seems to have a problem with the definition of the the term "sexual harassment"...

[DonaldD]

Further to my previous response - I think there is a disconnect between the different parties concerning what was actually wrong with Mr. Trump's video, where he claimed "celebrity immunity": on the right, many of those dismissing any issue with the video seem to think that the major problem is with his choice of language: if only he had not said "kitty cat", there would be no story.

Whereas to many who take offense with the video, they tend to be more concerned with the meaning of statement in full - not just with the fact that he was trivializing sexual battery, nor with the (debatable) interpretation that he made the claims, knowing their truth from experience, but just as importantly because it is evidence of exactly how he values women.

This is similar to how Cherry doesn't understand the difference between Obama's "Snakes on a Plane" moment and the Trump's confessions on the bus.

[D.W.]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Bill didn't ever get convicted of rape.  Or did I miss that?

Also, do I really need to see this Obama clip?

As for "any executive in any company would have been fired..."  It's a lot harder to fire a sitting president. 


seems I replied to a deleted comment?  That or I hit the wrong thread...

[cherrypoptart]

Sorry, yeah I thought I'd just let the comments go for a while instead of staying in the thick of it. I guess I didn't delete it fast enough.


You replied to my comment that I'd put what Obama did up against what Trump said any day of the week.

Yes I also said that any executive at any company would be fired in a heartbeat for this type of behavior.

Now remember that this happened in 2008 when Obama wasn't President yet. This was during his campaign when the choice would have been not to hire him in the first place instead of firing him.

Note that Trump only said something; he didn't actually do what he said. Does anyone really think he just goes up to women he is meeting for the first time and as they stretch out their arm for a handshake he moves right in to their crotch and shakes that instead? He's such a germaphobe he doesn't even like to shake hands in the first place so I doubt he's really going there right off the bat. Now Obama wasn't just saying something, he DID something. Trump is all talk and no action while Obama is Snakes on a Plane action like Samuel L. Jackson.

But that isn't even the main point. The key thing here is that the media will cover up for a Democrat something they would never cover up for a Republican. That's what I'm saying this proves with irrefutable evidence. Whether it's worse or not doesn't matter so much as the fact that if Romney done this they'd have been all over it like flies on Hillary faces. And rightfully so too. Don't try to tell me this isn't newsworthy? Let's remember that they went after Romney for magic underway, bullying a kid in school, and making his dog ride on top of the car. This is way bigger than that; it's bigger than if Hillary had been caught twerking on camera, but they wouldn't have revealed that either just like many of us, on both sides of the aisle, wish a kabosh could have been kept on Obama too, but apparently he can only be contained for so long.

As for Clinton and rape, as far as I know Bill Cosby hasn't been convicted of rape yet either. Maybe he never will be. That means more to some people than to others. Should he be invited to help Obama campaign too like Bill Clinton? 

[DonaldD]

As I said earlier - Cherry clearly has no idea what "Sexual Harassment" means.

It's a lot like what a lot of the anti-Clinton crowd is assuming with the leaked emails: "look - a leaked email!  It must mean Clinton did something wrong!"  Where for the most part, the emails being referenced are completely innocuous, but still proof, somehow, of wrongdoing.

[AI Wessex]

But that isn't even the main point. The key thing here is that the media will cover up for a Democrat something they would never cover up for a Republican. That's what I'm saying this proves with irrefutable evidence.

How do you know?  Maybe they have covered it up.  Your irrefutable evidence is nothing more than a silly anecdote, of which there are many for almost every politician.  What it proves, as if we didn't need any more, is that you have a visceral hatred for all things and people Democratic and will stretch any shred of rumor or minor fact to remind the world of that.  At the same time, you'll go to any extent to ignore Trump's excesses, misogyny, threats, xenophobia, pathological narcissism and immaturity.  I assume you do that because you find that he resonates with you on some level.

[cherrypoptart]

Well I'm a guy and I fell sexually harassed just having watched the video of it eight years later.

[D.W.]

Note that Trump only said something; he didn't actually do what he said. Does anyone really think he just goes up to women he is meeting for the first time and as they stretch out their arm for a handshake he moves right in to their crotch and shakes that instead?

As a rule?  No.  Do I think he HAS... ya, actually I do.  And certainly on the "lesser charge"? of unwanted kissing.

[cherrypoptart]

Well I don't want to get drawn into defending Trump's behavior. Even what he said is piggish. So I'm not going to defend what Trump said and I certainly won't defend him if he actually acted on it, but I guess I don't have much choice except to watch people defend equally disgusting behavior by Obama.

[AI Wessex]

Well I'm a guy and I fell sexually harassed just having watched the video of it eight years later.

Ah, you remind me that I left out almost childishly insecure.

[D.W.]

Guess I'll have to look up this comment since everyone has the apparent good taste not to spell out what he actually said/did that is somehow comparable if not worse...   

OK, looked it up...  Just to clarify, before I place this firmly in click bait territory, did HE (Obama) make a "snakes on a plane" comment to the press after the video clip?  If anything it's the reporters acting like children.  Would *I* have stayed away from the cameras at that point, ya... but still.  That you find this comparable makes me agree with AI.  Something I wouldn't have guessed before watching the clip.

[DonaldD]

"Snakes on a plane" was just my characterization of the video clip.

[cherrypoptart]

I looked through the comments and one mentioned Anthony Weiner.  I don't see how what Obama did is any better than what Weiner did and is Anthony's last name supposed to be some sort of aptonym?

Well all I can say is maybe just try real hard and imagine if Trump did this exact same thing tonight and the video of it showed up in the news tomorrow.

If you still think it "Ain't Nothin' But a Thang" then fine.

[D.W.]

Do you even know what these other people did and said?  These comparisons are beyond absurd.   

If Trump did so, I also wouldn't care.  If anything it would probably do his campaign some good.  All the insecurity jokes at his expense could be put to bed... 

The guy was talking on the phone, fully clothed in public with an erection.  Something most of us don't seem to have an issue with outside of our teens... but whatever.  Now if he was commenting on it to those present... that's different. 

[AI Wessex]

...is Anthony's last name supposed to be some sort of aptonym

Ooooh, so close!  Aptonym refers to a person's job, not what they are known for.  I had my wisdom teeth extracted (no lie) at the practice of Dr's Small, Pickens and Fear.  He was, he did and I felt it.

[scifibum]

The old Obama video doesn't really show anything, it's grainy and terrible.  It did circulate years ago, and back then it also showed nothing.

[rightleft22]

I haven’t been paying close attention but from what I have heard the emails leaked by wikileaks have been at best embarrassing and not an indication of conspiracy?

I’m not sure how I feel about wikileaks releasing hacked emails. 
I know I have written some pretty stupid emails myself that would embarrass and shame me it they were released. Especially if others read them out of context - The inside jokes and crap common if the emails I receive are typical.  I think it’s dangerous and not a decision I want made by someone hidden entity behind a website.

I realize the above concern is similar to Trumps excuse of locker room talk. Which I also kind of understand.
We have or had an expectation of privacy and looking back have participated in such ‘locker room’ talk with the guys…. Though that was in high school. And I do think there is a difference in ‘locker room’ talk and talk acknowledging taking advantage of ones position of power/celebrity for sexual gratification.
(We didn’t need a leaked tape to question Trump predatory nature, his public comments about girls as well as his own daughter are disturbing enough to make one wonder.

I feel the world has moved by me. I no longer have an expectation of privacy and am concerned about ware the global social media trend is taking us.
That said I suspect the outcome of such leeks and issues of privacy will result in the powerful finding other means to communicate among themselves.

Or maybe as now that many are defending their choices stating that it does not matter what a people says or what their personality traits are …. Unless the personality traits belong the other guy then it matters.

The current state of personal communication is truly baffling me.   

[TheDeamon]

I feel the world has moved by me. I no longer have an expectation of privacy and am concerned about ware the global social media trend is taking us.

And aerial drones that make "private areas" not so private, as well as modern convenience items that are actually pretty creepy when you think about it. Many people live in homes where their Xbox is literally watching and listening to them.

And it isn't just Xbox and the other game consoles. There are plenty of big name and not so big name products and services out there that are doing comparable things. It's hard to find a personal electronic device that doesn't come with a built in microphone at the least, and most also contain cameras, and also for convenience, these products naturally are wireless networkable and can do so automatically.

In many respects we're well beyond the capability of 1984 and "big brother is watching you" and the wilder part of it all is that these devices are being willingly and eager installed and brought into people's homes without any need for government involvement. The tech is also far more portable, and far more efficient than anything Orwell could conceive of back in the 1940's. Good luck finding a secluded grove to truly have a private conversation or encounter if you're a "person of (sufficient) interest" with today's technical capabilities, and it isn't just the government you have to be worried about being able to do that to you now.

Between the veil of privacy being practically non-existent anymore, and various other factors coming into play as things move forward, I think the list of what people will find (personally) shameful, or publicly scandalous is going to start shrinking at an ever increasing rate. Assuming the whole thing doesn't just collapse, social norms in 30 to 40 years are probably going to be very strange to even present day standards, as the adoption of technology further shrinks (on a voluntary basis) the area of true private space, and technology likewise gives all of us more and better ways of intruding on the (perceived) privacy of others.

[D.W.]

Read that thumbs up as "DW agrees with this."  Not sure I LIKE it. 

[cherrypoptart]

Interesting article on Assange's motive:

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/

“Consider what would happen if one of these parties gave up their mobile phones, fax and email correspondence—let alone the computer systems which manage their [subscribers], donors, budgets, polling, call centres and direct mail campaigns. They would immediately fall into an organisational stupor and lose to the other.”

“The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive ‘secrecy tax’) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaptation.”

The parties wouldn't have to be so afraid of leaks if they weren't so corrupt in the first place. Yes, leaks would still be bad but not as bad as this.

[AI Wessex]

I feel that way about football teams.  They practice in secret and the head coach covers his mouth when he talks to his spotters in the booth.  Even baseball managers use hand signals so their planning won't be apparent to the other team, and what about catchers, eh?  I hope Wikileaks goes after them, too.

[rightleft22]

one day Wikileaks will get hacked. what will we find? Does Wikileaks share all of its internal communication?

I understand the argument that a organisation with something to hide will try to hide it and fear being hacked.
I don't have anything horrible illegal things to hide but I still don't want to be hacked....

What I observe is that a person or organisation that isn't doing anything illegal still has to fear being hacked as anything said can and will be used against you.

I suspect what thedeamon posted is accurate . " what people will find (personally) shameful, or publicly scandalous" is changing.
Today I heard multiple people defend there position by saying it doesn't matter what someone says or how they say it if the think what this person wants is what they want.

When character no longer maters maybe it won't matter who know what, or what is true...

This makes me sad

[D.W.]

In terms of who I'm voting for this year?  Character already doesn't matter...   

[AI Wessex]

In some respects even Nixon wasn't as bad as history has judged him, but his character was deplorable ("if the president does it, it is legal"). Trump would be far worse sittng in the most powerful chair in the world no matter what his actual policies.

[cherrypoptart]

It does matter to some extent still.

People may not care about Hillary's character or Trump's and will vote for them because of the issues that they feel are most important.

So what happens when they find out Hillary believes in free trade and globalism even though she wanted to give the impression that she was willing to take a look at the costs when she was running against Sanders?

If that's their big thing is it right for her to be able to lie about that?

Or what if Trump's emails revealed that he had no intention of building the wall or deporting anyone? He just said that to get elected and then he's going to open the borders even more and grant amnesty to everyone so if being tough on illegal immigration is pretty much the only reason most of his supporters are voting for him at all, is it right that he should be able to get away with a deal breaking lie?

Going to the football analogy this isn't like hiding your plays from the opposite team. It's not telling your own team that you are sabotaging all their efforts to purposefully lose the game they are trying to win.

[D.W.]

So what happens when they find out Hillary believes in free trade and globalism even though she wanted to give the impression that she was willing to take a look at the costs when she was running against Sanders?

We turn to them with a shocked look on our face and say something like, "Oh *censored*... you didn't know?  Wow, I mean... really?  You had no idea?"  then pat them on the shoulder and maybe buy them a drink.

[cherrypoptart]

Hehe, yeah I suppose that's what would have happened without wikileaks. Now at least they know going in that they should be voting for her based on a broader spectrum of issues and if that's a deal breaker then they have a decision to make. To be honest I thought she was sincere when she was talking about taking another look at TPP and that she didn't support it anymore, ostensibly because she listened to the constituents and they made some good points that she was considering thoughtfully. Without the wikileaks thing about public and private positions in which she point blank says she wants globalism (and open borders too which might not be as much of a problem to her supporters... I don't know), I honestly wouldn't have guessed she was that duplicitous on that particular issue. I mean I know she's a liar and opportunistic but I wouldn't have been able to call it for sure the way she called it on herself. That's not one of my most important issues though so maybe I just didn't care enough about it to doubt her on it as much as I should have.

[D.W.]

Hehe, yeah I suppose that's what would have happened without wikileaks. 

OK, this is a joke right?  I mean, I know AI is prone to bouts of claiming nothing but sunshine blasts out of her rear-end but you didn't really need wikileaks to come to this conclusion did you?

As to TTP, I honestly don't know.  I don't believe she is for it.  That's not to say something modified and re-branded, preferably when nobody's paying attention won't come along but THIS deal, I think is dead.  As to WHY, it wasn't a change of heart, it wasn't some good input she was persuaded by.  She (IMO) is a weather-vane.  She can tell which way the wind is blowing and moves accordingly.  Can you TRUST her?  You can trust her to move with the party.  If enough of the party moves, she'll acknowledge it and adjust. 

I know a lot of people who would be shocked by this, and those same people didn't have an amazing ability to ignore or deny or self-spin their way out of the info; so I can't say I don't believe you didn't already know this.  But, I just kinda expected everyone here "knew" this.  Even the party / Hillary loyalists who wouldn't come right out and say it. 

[cherrypoptart]

Well I know she lies all the time but I just didn't know she was specifically lying about that.

Well I just said she lies all the time but actually that's not even close to accurate. She tells the truth much of the time too. Maybe most of the time for all I know. I mean I believe she is for almost all the things she says she is for and against almost all the things she says she is against, so picking that one as the issue she was lying about wasn't something I was able to do without wikileaks. I didn't know globalism was such a big issue with her, just didn't know it and yes I admit it.

I mean, if she said she was rethinking her stance on abortion or gun control or the coal industry or global warming or any one of a number of issues yeah I would have seen right through that, but not on this.

Speaking of Al, that would be a good question for him (or should I say you when you get here and read this since it's rude to talk about you in the third person, Al and you deserve better), if he (you) knew she was such a fervent globalist.

If she could fool Al too then I shouldn't feel so bad about it. And if she didn't fool Al then did you know she was just playing everybody in her primary campaign against Sanders and didn't mean what she was saying about agreeing with him?

[AI Wessex]

Hehe, yeah I suppose that's what would have happened without wikileaks. 

OK, this is a joke right?  I mean, I know AI is prone to bouts of claiming nothing but sunshine blasts out of her rear-end but you didn't really need wikileaks to come to this conclusion did you?

is it wrong of me to think that was funny?  <Containing myself>, Wikileaks is *not* your friend if you are interested in sunshine, since that's not what's coming out of their asses.  They *are* your friend if you viscerally hate Clinton and Democrats, because you know as well as I do that Assange hates them even more than you.

[AI Wessex]

Well I just said she lies all the time but actually that's not even close to accurate. She tells the truth much of the time too. Maybe most of the time for all I know. I mean I believe she is for almost all the things she says she is for and against almost all the things she says she is against, so picking that one as the issue she was lying about wasn't something I was able to do without wikileaks. I didn't know globalism was such a big issue with her, just didn't know it and yes I admit it.

Uh, whuh?  You really shouldn't drink a case of Lite Beer before you post; it messes with your higher brain function.

Speaking of Al, that would be a good question for him (or should I say you when you get here and read this since it's rude to talk about you in the third person, Al and you deserve better), if he (you) knew she was such a fervent globalist.

Depending on the definition of "globalist" she may be or she may not be.  I liked the episode of "West Wing" called "See the Whole Board".  So, what do you think "globalist" means?

[D.W.]

Hehe, yeah I suppose that's what would have happened without wikileaks. 

OK, this is a joke right?  I mean, I know AI is prone to bouts of claiming nothing but sunshine blasts out of her rear-end but you didn't really need wikileaks to come to this conclusion did you?

is it wrong of me to think that was funny?  <Containing myself>, Wikileaks is *not* your friend if you are interested in sunshine, since that's not what's coming out of their asses.  They *are* your friend if you viscerally hate Clinton and Democrats, because you know as well as I do that Assange hates them even more than you.

This is where I use the Futureama meme of "Not sure if perfect example of what I meant?"

[cherrypoptart]

I just saw that episode very recently, Al. Very good. I'll admit it took me a while to get it in the show which in fact was not until the end when it was finally explained and in the real world I certainly still don't get it because, like in the show, there are pieces I not only can't see but even if I could see them I don't even understand how they move.

I should look up the definition of globalist to make sure but my guess off the cuff is that it means she is for free trade and limitless outsourcing of jobs, not being a protectionist, and with the open borders aspect of it being for a virtually limitless amount of free movement of labor into America, and the main thing on top of all of that is that she is for an eventual one world government that would have authority over America and mean us giving up a sizeable chunk of our sovereignty. The part of it I think her supporters probably have the most problem with is the big global corporations engaging in a race around the world to the bottom in terms of poverty level wages and going to countries without meaningful pollution controls.

Oh by the way off topic but for Pete I don't know if he ever saw The West Wing but the best episode I saw so far was Season 2 Episode 17 The Stackhouse Filibuster which choked me up pretty good by the end so if you just have time to watch one episode of the whole show that would be my pick.

[D.W.]

and the main thing on top of all of that is that she is for an eventual one world government that would have authority of America and mean us giving up a sizeable chunk of our sovereignty.

I don't think there are ANY credible leaders out there who want this.

What *I* fear is that many of them believe in a warped version of the typically republican staple of "free economy".  A world where we are in fact run by competing corporate businesses.  Where capital "G" government is mostly window dressing to the real power moves going on behind the scenes.  Maybe some look forward to the time when they can end the exhaustive work of trying to pretend they aren't bought and paid for already.  All this democracy stuff gets in the way of profits.

[AI Wessex]

I should look up the definition of globalist to make sure but my guess off the cuff is that it means she is for free trade and limitless outsourcing of jobs, not being a protectionist, and with the open borders aspect of it being for a virtually limitless amount of free movement of labor into America, and the main thing on top of all of that is that she is for an eventual one world government that would have authority over America and mean us giving up a sizeable chunk of our sovereignty.

That's one possible definition, but not the one I would use.  I think a globalist thinks in terms of getting the best outcome for all countries without insisting that your own country gets the absolute best for itself.  Consider that increasing tariffs on imported goods increases the cost to US consumers.  Is that a good thing?  Global markets improve the ability of goods to move more freely to more places in the world.  Some countries will pay a little more for the privilege than they might if they force other countries to sacrifice their own well-being to retain access to our markets.  But then they are poorer and can't afford to buy as much of our exports as our businesses would want.  You need a balance where everybody wins, or at least feels like they do.

This is where I use the Futureama meme of "Not sure if perfect example of what I meant?"

Who cares what you meant ? *I* liked it!

[Fenring]

and the main thing on top of all of that is that she is for an eventual one world government that would have authority of America and mean us giving up a sizeable chunk of our sovereignty.

I don't think there are ANY credible leaders out there who want this.

You are all right to say that a brief definition of "globalist" won't really help explain what it means. However, more pertinent to how it's defined might to explain about whom you're talking. For any given group "globalist" will simply mean some version of how they want things. For instance the John Birchers may well see "globalist" as meaning simply free trade and deregulation, which naturally would tend towards outsourcing of labor and foreign powers having leverage over America indirectly (often through debt management). But if you take the CFR, on the other hand, their set of goals are explicitly one world government (perhaps cherry was thinking of them), the elimination of nations as we know them, and global trade. However the CFR version of this shouldn't be confused with what we might think of as 'free trade' because although it would be global (as is the case with convention free trade) it would in fact be regulated by some elite cartel that would set the terms to suit itself. That is much as it is now, but more so. When you consider the TPP, which would enable corporations to sue governments and force them to change policy that harms them, we see a good example of as stepping stone to this type of system.

In terms of someone like Hillary, she is either loosely associated with the CFR or outright one of them (I don't believe it's plausible that she has no connection), but just for the sake of contrast, she's probably very far removed from the John Birch Society. But what does that mean regarding whether she is a "globalist"? Honestly nothing. We cannot comment on it, since we can't know and probably will never know. That kind of backroom affiliation usually never comes out, if there is one at all, which there may not be. They don't rat each other out, or disclose membership publicly. When names get out they simply don't comment. Just FYI, most major politicians to come around in the last 20 years were either CFR or CFR-affiliated in some capacity, on a bipartisan basis. They are not a left-leaning or right-leaning group as such. I should mention that I only bring them up because cherry mentioned one-world government and they are the group that fits that bill and have the means to shift things in that direction. Things already are largely shifted in that direction, as "government" means less and less the more it's inextricably entwined with powerful corporations and economic interests. Once those interests and it become indistinguishable "government" as such no longer exists; at least not in terms of the way we classically think of "public" and "private."

[Greg Davidson]

In making accusations about Hillary Clinton from the wikileaks information, I'd like to see people provide extended quotes to support their positions rather than simplistic assertions. As with much of how Hillary Clinton thinks, I suspect that she is usually considering issues with nuance and complexity. Why should we not take from this hidden look at the inner workings of the Clinton circle that there is no evidence for the crazy scandals that have been spun by Republican groups? Some people (not Hillary) wrote some cringeworthy emails out of 30,000.

And what is mostly seen with respect to the Presidential nominee is that there is clear evidence of a serious politician who is diligently going about a political campaign.


 

[cherrypoptart]

So here is what we've been getting:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/despite-new-adverb-trumps-claim-about-clinton-want/

This is basically the position I've seen here insisting that Hillary isn't against the right to keep and bear arms.

However, there was recently the leaked audio in which she said, "... And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-is-wrong-on-the-second-amendment/

This obviously refers to the Heller decision in which the law that challenged the right of regular people to keep a handgun in their house in D.C. was found to be unConstitutional by what amounted to a 5-4 party line Supreme Court vote.

So where is the spin on that? This is what I've been saying has been obvious for some time but it's been denied and denied and denied because supposedly there was no proof. Was this audio recording doctored then? Has it been misinterpreted somehow?

Or did she just directly say with her own mouth what I've been saying she's been saying in so many words all along?

And as far as how long it will take to get the ball rolling on this as was brought up before whether it will take twenty years or a hundred, that's irrelevant and provides no comfort to anyone who takes the 2nd Amendment right of the average law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms seriously.

So I'm willing enough to concede the obvious that if your big issue is abortion, or you want to tax the rich, or you're against drilling for oil on government land, or you support keeping sanctuary cities and hope for amnesty for illegals, and so on down the list of many issues if you feel strongly about one or more of them and those are deciding factors on how you vote with Hillary on your side of those issues then absolutely Hillary is the right choice for you.

Can't anyone supporting Hillary admit that if the 2nd Amendment is one of your big issues and a deciding factor for your vote that you have to vote for Trump because of it?

[Greg Davidson]

You are making leaps in faith to assert what you say she is thinking (or rather, you are linking to an article to someone citing another author who made an assumption of what Hillary really must have meant). That's not a very strong substantiation of your point - that she once said something ambiguous that someone else asserted really meant something that would help your argument.

I would assert that a more likely indication of what she means on guns is what she says she means to do about guns, as was put into the Democratic Party platform:

“To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets.

[AI Wessex]

Can't anyone supporting Hillary admit that if the 2nd Amendment is one of your big issues and a deciding factor for your vote that you have to vote for Trump because of it?

You hear what you want to hear.  What her position is and always has been is:

But he hedged in the statement by making clear that Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

[cherrypoptart]

I think we both understand it perfectly.

The Supreme Court in Heller, 5 out of 9 justices anyway, said that a city (D.C. specifically) cannot refuse to let you possess a handgun.

She is saying that at least some cities should have the power to ban handguns. I understand that's the way it was up until Heller. You even see old Westerns where they have to give up their guns at the city line like in Unforgiven.

In this case she is for local authority having greater power, something conservatives say they generally support, though obviously conservatives are making an exception to that general rule on this issue.

Before that leaked audio came out you might have been able to make the case about people hearing only what they want to hear, but it's past that now because she actually went ahead and said it. This was one of those "public and private positions" that was private and against her will went public, but it is what it is and she said what she said and there's no two ways about it now.

She's saying the Supreme Court got it wrong on Heller. I brought up before that it doesn't really even matter what she says because her nominee will decide with the other four liberals up there to overturn it anyway, but she just went ahead and outright said it. Y'all can try parsing the other things she has said but good luck parsing what she said there when she didn't intend it to be her "public position". "The Supreme Court got it wrong." There is no parsing that.

You may as well start trying to make the case as to why cities should be able to confiscate handguns from law abiding citizens if they feel it's in the best public interest, and good luck with that because there's just no beating around the bush anymore on it. The cat is out of the bag. I wish I had a lot of other colloquialisms to just run on with them for a while to make the point more humorously because if I did I would.