She briefly apologised for using the phrase "basket of deplorables" about Trump's supporters simply because it cost her a lot of fringe votes.
Isn't that the motivation for Trump's current backhanded apology? I mean, if we're tallying this here, that's two apologies and acceptance of responsibility to one, meaning she's apologised 200% more than Trump so far. On from that i really doubt that's the reason she did it, it makes more sense that she legitimately regrets saying that because it was a poor decision politcally as well
Clinton was appointed as legal for a child rapist after he asked for a women to represent him as he felt it would strengthen his case.Clinton asked not to but was denied.
True, she tried harder than you imply here though.
She pushed a narrative that the 12 year old victim was a liar and chased after older men.
Flase, and directly stated so in the Snopes article.
This was something put forward by more than one person, including a child psychologist part of the investigation. None of those people were Clinton. Clinton requested the victim undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine the validity of these claims, and the court agreed.
In an interview years later she laughs when talking about her lack of faith in polygraph machines after she had him do a test and it said he was telling the truth when she knew he was not.
This is partially true, she laughs that it destroyed her faith because she was sure the result would support the prosecution but the polygraph came back supporting her own case. She did not "know he was lying" just hoped he would so he'd have a more concrete sentence.
This isn't where, at least personally speaking, the problem lies. She doesn't attempt to apologise to the kid in the interview, or at all during the years that have followed. The most she's ever expressed regret in regards to the whole fiasco is that she had to work that case.
And... why should she? She did her job despite not liking it, the guy pled guilty and she got him a plea bargain with the support of the mother of the victim. There's nothing about this case that she needs to apologise
for and any apology from her would be meaningless. She didn't do the crime, she didn't get the guy off scott free, she didn't lie, she didn't claim he was innocent and she didn't attack the victim. An apology would be hollow and empty, bowing entierly to any public pressure that would require this happen
Then she had the nerve to state 'I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you." on her website, which, funnily enough, her team removed after the 12 year old made noise about it in feb 2015. At that point Clinton could have apologised for all the grief the case caused, but she opted to flip flop on a statement again instead.
This is false. It's true that the "right to be believed" part was removed from the page text when the wording was changed from a big quote into a list of policies, but it wasn't in feb 2015 and wasn't after allegations from the 12 y/o (Which did not happen until recenly when the trump campaign got in contact with her, and she has now lied about the case as part of his campaign). It was changed feb 2016. However, the video on the site still retains that part of the quote with the caption that states it.
It's pretty nonsense to present the idea that she's suddenly decided that sexual assault victims have the right to be heard and don't deserve to be silence, but they don't deserve to be believed.
She used the phrase numerous times during her primary campaign and in debates with Sen. Sanders whenever he called out her massive flip flops.
Hmm, might have to look this up. But this is in a
completely different context
to the line the last time you were talking about it, so the point still stands.
Here's a fourth for you. He isn't a spin doctor, that's the whole point. I was asked why people still view him in the way they do, this is one of the reasons why. It's all about the language.
That's... not an apology. "I have said things i regret" is not at all an apology, nor does it even bother to name what he regrets.
He might not be smart enough to be a spin doctor, but he employs a load of them. His statements and scripts are built to spin politics and push the buttons he needs to- it's just lucky he could do more of that than the other repub candidates on his own or he wouldn't have gotten far enough to hire them.
Clinton was Sec. of State from 2009-2013, are you honestly suggesting that the Sec. of State had no say or part in US drone strikes during that period?
Of course not, but the implication that she had the power or need to stop them or that she is somehow responsible for all of them personally is absurd (Considering the drone strike programs were running before and are running after her stint in power).
But as the article says the CIA actually controls the drone strikes, and process each request to the state department to allow them a degree of control (Not full control, and not really even full control over their go-ahead) and even this was something signed in
under clinton
from 2011 onwards (Which means she had what, a year and a half at maximum of any degree of control over drone strikes at all?)