No Tuco, Paula Jones claims about Clinton's distinguishing features are not discredited.
The case never went to trial because Clinton settled out of court. He gave Jones $850,000.
Then it turned out that pre-trial evidence submitted by Bill Clinton was false. A certain Monica Lewinsky had made an affidavit claiming she never had sex with Bill Clinton. The Starr investigation found the infamous blue dress.
As a result of the Paula Jones case, Bill Clinton paid Jones $850,000. He was fined $90,000 by judge Wright for providing false testimony. He had his law license suspended for 5 years and paid a $25,000 fine in Arkansas. He was disbarred from arguing cases before the US Supreme Court. He was ultimately impeached for suborning perjury in the Paula Jones case.
So no, I don't believe Paula Jone's testimony is what has been discredited.
Like I said before, drwho, were they really the two best candidates for the position of US President? Me thinks there are a few issues to be raised regarding the system.
Phil, I don't think they were the 2 best either. But that was the choice the American people made. Both were selected more or less democratically via our primary system.
I really do believe Trump positioned himself perfectly with the mood of the American voters this year. I have my reservations, but the election is over.
Can't stand the man, but he did an excellent job at getting the American people behind him. The World awaits his skill at foreign diplomacy. He may well prove to be a great President. I think your primary system comes down to money though and therein lies the problem. I believe Trump has actually stood up to big business before in a speech at a rally. Went down well with the voters. However, I await to see if he really has the balls to tackle them once he's President. If not he'll turn out to be like a lot of your pollies, say one thing, do another.
Interesting fact, Clinton spent about twice what Trump spent on the campaign.
Ridiculous amounts of money, could have built many many hospitals, schools etc with all that wasted cash, Like I said, your system should change, its out of step with the people, all about political parties. How could an independent or new political party actually carry any clout?
He also spent less than his closest competitors in the Republican primary.
The amount of money spent indicates the value of the job. Being President of the United States is worth a lot of money to the people who want the job and especially to those who get it.
Of course I would hate to be answering the phones at the Clinton foundation. There must be a lot of angry donors asking for their money back.
Same thing though, what a waste of money. Where did all that money come from (not Trump particularly) the piper would have to be paid. Hence the corrupt nature of your political system. If Trump can actually change that he will be the best President since the early ones. The system was OK for the country as it was but doesn't fit now. Time for a change.
The value to who? Not the people which is where it should be. After all it's the will of the people that the President SHOULD be representing.
at's what they have voted Trump in on. Lets see if he can deliver.
Apologies, hit enter at the wrong point!!
Yes, we need to get back to the way things were. They have changed dramatically in the last century. The President didn't used to have the kind of power he now has. That's why people are willing to pay so much to be President.
I don't think we want to go back in time, merely reflect when things have gone out of kilter and make corrections to suit the times. If we thought less about ourselves as individuals and more about ourselves as humanity
Basic lesson in economics. The value of anything is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it. Hence the value of being President of the United States this year is worth less than $500,000,000 to Trump, or more than $800,000,000 to Clinton.
Not really, over simplistic. Once humans have the basic necessities of life, water, food, warmth and shelter, their desires or wants vary according to the type of person. Most people don't choose a job based on the income it brings in. Most desire job satisfaction, a feeling they're lives are worthwhile. In the super rich of course it comes down to the desire for power.
Interestingly, I heard from a female member of the British House of Lords who said after many years there, she realised that although unelected, the members of the House actually were there because they felt the need to do the right thing by the people f the country, all of them, rich, poor, male, female regardless of which political party they represented. Sure many were wealthy, but as a result they had nothing to prove, and were not beholden to others, rather then own beliefs. Furthermore, they would listen to arguments and debate the issues, treating all views with due respect. They would argue passionately for what they believed in, yet when the vote was cast, would respect the outcome. For many years I, believed democracy meant electing the best person for the job. Now I'm not so sure that is the best way. Sure, Brexit was democratic because it was one person one vote. The will of the people had spoken. Maybe a better system of governance needs to be looked at.
I want to open this by saying that I am, by American standards, an extraordinarily left leaning liberal, and by French standards, I'm probably a fascist. That should give you an idea where I stand. If it doesn't, ask for more details.
Tuco: Watch this https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/\nvideos/vb.796085293847699/1044777035645189/?t\nype=3&theater
Phil, there is no good system of governance for the number of people on the planet any more. There just isn't. Or if there is, it hasn't been tried yet.
Just remember how much you support Trump now and believe in him. Too many people who supported Bush 2 and believed in him now say they never supported him. I firmly hope our new POTUS will lead our country in the right direction. My only hope is that he is not as "successful" as GWB was in his 8 years at the helm. Since, remember, GWB was possibly one of the most "successful"' presidents in getting what he wanted.
SamanthaJoy I agree with that clips premise unfortunately what he is doing is saying it is okay to vote for a racist, mysogynist, narcissist, tax-dodging, draft-dodging Donald Trump because Hillary was just as bad??? Sheesh not even the majority of voters accepted that.
He has no mandate and unless there is some 9/11 type event which got GWB re-elected he will be a one term POTUS. Or he could totally reverse his stance on almost everything he ran on and get re-elected. This is the last post from me concerning the election.
Wonderful - please keep your promise
A grateful chog will thank you.
You ought to think about doing the same KnightTime ;-)
DING. A loner of 5 on a virtual. But I found it first place I looked.