>>* Not directly related to this discussion, but I'm in a couple of private election-related groups. People there have been explaining why they're voting for Hillary. Some of the stories they have to tell about their lives and what they've faced because they're women or because they're gay (or both) are blood-curdling. I've had tears in my eyes more than once.
>
>What does voting for HRC have to do with facing blood-curdling discrimination?

Given the way Trump treats women, a lot of women see voting for him as a continuation of the abuse (not just discrimination) they've been living with.


>If I felt I was being discriminated against, HRC is probably the "last" person whom I would trust to protect my rights. There is a mountain of evidence that she sells out to whatever force will gain her politically.
>

Try reading some of the first-person accounts of people she's helped over the years. Lots of big stuff and lots of small stuff.


>And speaking of blood-curdling, read all the available documents of her defending a rapist in the 1970's, specifically the affidavit documents she filed. She filed a motion to try to get the 12 year old girl to get a psychiatric examination. Here is her exact quote:
>
> “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body”
>

>And then there was the laughing in the audio regarding the accused’s underwear and the crime lab.
>
>She managed to negotiate a plea deal down to “Unlawful Fondling of a Child Under the Age of Fourteen”, and her client was sentenced to one year in a county jail and four years of probation. Hardly what the bastard deserved.
>

I haven't read the documents. I have read about the case. She was court-appointed and her responsibility was to represent her client to the best of her ability. That's how our system works. Doing any less would have been dereliction.

From the relevant Snopes article:

'That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,"'

and:

'She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology):'

Here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

>So you'll have to excuse me for a bout of retroperistalsis at the thought of HRC protecting victims. HRC is all about HRC and the DNC machine - nothing more.

So she went to Alabama to fight public funding of segregated schools for herself? She worked for the Children's Defense Fund for herself? She brought a vaunted home preschool education program to Arkansas for herself? She worked for funding for 9/11 responders and survivors for herself?

Sounds like you've been reading only one side of her story.

Tamar