|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler +She was talking about black youth
No, she was talking about young gang members.
+ Show Spoiler [More context] +
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
see how gh is way more radical and loony now compared to a year ago. this is the sort of self radicalization that a informationally closed, feedback heavy situation like the sanders campaign can create on the far left.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 14 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure she is laughing about the judge asking her to leave the court room while he reviewed the plea because he didn’t want to talk about it in front of her. Because judges are weird. The plea deal appears to have happened because the crime lab threw away the evidence like idiots. It was a slam dunk case and the crime lab screwed it up.
It happened because the forensics lab compromised the evidence (blood on the underwear) that would probably have sealed the case in the prosecution's favor.
Clinton noticed it, brought it up with a major forensics expert in New York, and brought him in to testify about its inadmissibility.
|
I missed the part where is was compromised. I thought they threw away the section they got the blood from without allowing the defense access. The part about the judge asking her to leave the court room, but keep her client in the court room, is sort of hilarious.
|
On May 14 2016 07:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean the quote isn't accurate but it's pretty much what she said.
The actual quote I presume it's referring to is.
Roy: "How did it turn out"
Hillary: "Oh he plea bargained. I got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail for about 2 months"
She laughed when she talked about how she basically knew he was guilty, but that didn't matter. She knew she set a rapist free and didn't appear to be bothered by it at all. People can take that for what they will. I personally would have a deep sense of anger at the system for helping to destroy a young girls life, more than a sense of pride/ease exposing incompetence within the system in order to free someone you believe to be a child rapist. Suppose that's one of several reasons I'm not a criminal lawyer.
Getting guilty people off or convicting innocent people because of ones ability to make the best legal argument they can strikes me like a legal pyramid scheme. That it's legal and lucrative doesn't get it over the moral and ethical bar for me. Which also happens to be one of my most frequent sources of contention with those on the right (more recently on the left as well). Some seem to think that if something is legal and lucrative than it's basically automatically moral and ethical. First, you're editorializing the interview. There are numerous instances where, yes, she did express that the case had a deep effect on her. One of the highlights of the interview for instance is that she states she'll never trust the polygraph again after that case. To argue that it had no effect on her is silly, given the girl in question was a family friend. That being said, she was the court-appointed attorney lawyer to Taylor. Second, it is entirely ethical (in legal ethics anyways) to defend someone who you believe is guilty in the Western legal framework. As a defense attorney, your duty is not to determine the guilt of your client, but to offer up the best damned defense they can get as a citizen of this country deserving of a fair shake at representation, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Deliberately throwing a case just because of her own belief of the defendant's guilt would be a significantly greater evidence of moral bankruptcy. The more important issue raised by the interview is discussing her own opinions about the client's guilt. That's something that is questionable unless she was given permission by her client to do so.
I'm not suggesting she should have thrown the case, I'm saying our "justice" system has some serious flaws that need to be reexamined (not saying I have some magic bullet, but thinking it's the best it could be seems pretty absurd). So simply saying "that's how it works" only goes so far. Slavery was "just how it works" but it doesn't mean people didn't wrestle with how seeing humans treated that way made them feel as part of such a society, legally enshrined or not. Things got better because enough people said "Hey, this 'how it works' isn't really working", I'm saying our justice system needs people who think like that, not people who aren't torn by how it's current incarnation has them pleased about freeing a child rapist because "it's how it works" imo.
But sure, there's always the discussing her clients guilt if that's what people want to note as potentially unethical.
On May 14 2016 07:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg She was talking about black youth No, she was talking about young gang members. + Show Spoiler [More context] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno
Yeah, black youth gang members. They were victims first and she set that aside and called them super predators, which was a term that meant something when it was used at the time, and what it meant was young black youth victims of deteriorating communities still reeling from the flooding of their communities with crack and the crime that came with it. Or as it was seen by her, people who needed to be "brought to heel". It was an unquestionably messed up thing to say, it was a perverse perspective at the time and is currently.
@plan you find that apology?
@one Ha!
User was warned for this post
|
A case like that one, where the state and DA so clearly dropped that ball and screwed themselves, is not really the best example of the flawed system. Of course it is terrible that he walked, but we get into a dark place when we started making exceptions "we all know s/he is guilty."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not even sure where to start with this one. the most charitable argument is something like, they had the evidence but a formalistic rule prevented it from being presented.
in this situation any 'fix' would probably give some flex to the conduct of the 'crime lab' and allow them to dabble in evidence mishandling. but this is very bad for discipline and probably leads to more injustices in the long run. also what if you have a regime interested in using the legal system to punish opponents?
in an adversarial legal system the lawyer's duty is just representing the side assigned. it's a kind of norm that is codified and enforced by the structure of the legal system, not any individual lawyer's personal ethics. if you had a more magisterial system the outome would probably be different but there are also advantages to adversarial system particularly when state power cannot be trusted.
|
On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 14 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean the quote isn't accurate but it's pretty much what she said.
The actual quote I presume it's referring to is.
Roy: "How did it turn out"
Hillary: "Oh he plea bargained. I got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail for about 2 months"
She laughed when she talked about how she basically knew he was guilty, but that didn't matter. She knew she set a rapist free and didn't appear to be bothered by it at all. People can take that for what they will. I personally would have a deep sense of anger at the system for helping to destroy a young girls life, more than a sense of pride/ease exposing incompetence within the system in order to free someone you believe to be a child rapist. Suppose that's one of several reasons I'm not a criminal lawyer.
Getting guilty people off or convicting innocent people because of ones ability to make the best legal argument they can strikes me like a legal pyramid scheme. That it's legal and lucrative doesn't get it over the moral and ethical bar for me. Which also happens to be one of my most frequent sources of contention with those on the right (more recently on the left as well). Some seem to think that if something is legal and lucrative than it's basically automatically moral and ethical. First, you're editorializing the interview. There are numerous instances where, yes, she did express that the case had a deep effect on her. One of the highlights of the interview for instance is that she states she'll never trust the polygraph again after that case. To argue that it had no effect on her is silly, given the girl in question was a family friend. That being said, she was the court-appointed attorney lawyer to Taylor. Second, it is entirely ethical (in legal ethics anyways) to defend someone who you believe is guilty in the Western legal framework. As a defense attorney, your duty is not to determine the guilt of your client, but to offer up the best damned defense they can get as a citizen of this country deserving of a fair shake at representation, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Deliberately throwing a case just because of her own belief of the defendant's guilt would be a significantly greater evidence of moral bankruptcy. The more important issue raised by the interview is discussing her own opinions about the client's guilt. That's something that is questionable unless she was given permission by her client to do so. I'm not suggesting she should have thrown the case, I'm saying our "justice" system has some serious flaws that need to be reexamined (not saying I have some magic bullet, but thinking it's the best it could be seems pretty absurd). So simply saying "that's how it works" only goes so far. Slavery was "just how it works" but it doesn't mean people didn't wrestle with how seeing humans treated that way made them feel as part of such a society, legally enshrined or not. Things got better because enough people said "Hey, this 'how it works' isn't really working", I'm saying our justice system needs people who think like that, not people who aren't torn by how it's current incarnation has them pleased about freeing a child rapist because "it's how it works" imo. But sure, there's always the discussing her clients guilt if that's what people want to note as potentially unethical.
I would be the first person to note that there are plenty of issues with the state of the US criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing, drug criminalization, absurdly high (absolute and per-population) rates of incarceration, the disenfranchisement and marginalization of formerly incarcerated individuals, and a lack of rehabilitative services.
But the insinuation that defense lawyers shouldn't do their best to defend their clients is the exact opposite of what we need. Yes, sometimes the basic premise of Western law, in "innocent until proven guilty", allows someone guilty to walk away. But someone's guilt must be determined in a court of law, and it is preferable to someone innocent going to jail over a crime they did not commit (which still happens all too often, especially with the pervasiveness of plea deals and harsh sentencing laws in the US now). Arguing against this leads us down a dark, slippery slope.
|
On May 14 2016 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is the standard response without the "did you live through it!?" The people she was calling super predators were black youth who grew up in abusive communities, they were victims first.
Who cares? If they pose a threat, it doesn't matter why they are a threat. They were a threat to their communities, the people who went to the government for help and played a role in designing and implementing the crime bill. There wasn't time to do some kinda outreach to fix broken communities. Murders were happening that day. The communities themselves wanted the crime bill.
|
On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:10 kwizach wrote:On May 14 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg She was talking about black youth No, she was talking about young gang members. + Show Spoiler [More context] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno Yeah, black youth gang members.
You are trying to paint her statement as having something to do in itself with skin color. It did not. She was targeting gang members for being gang members, not for their skin color.
|
So what do you think of hillary's views on gay marriage? She seems to go on the political tide of what is popular at the time.
|
On May 14 2016 07:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:10 kwizach wrote:On May 14 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg She was talking about black youth No, she was talking about young gang members. + Show Spoiler [More context] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno Yeah, black youth gang members. You are trying to paint her statement as having something to do in itself with skin color. It did not. She was targeting gang members for being gang members, not for their skin color.
The question is: If they were white, would they still be referred to as super predators?
Can you honestly answer that question with a yes?
|
On May 14 2016 07:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 14 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean the quote isn't accurate but it's pretty much what she said.
The actual quote I presume it's referring to is.
Roy: "How did it turn out"
Hillary: "Oh he plea bargained. I got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail for about 2 months"
She laughed when she talked about how she basically knew he was guilty, but that didn't matter. She knew she set a rapist free and didn't appear to be bothered by it at all. People can take that for what they will. I personally would have a deep sense of anger at the system for helping to destroy a young girls life, more than a sense of pride/ease exposing incompetence within the system in order to free someone you believe to be a child rapist. Suppose that's one of several reasons I'm not a criminal lawyer.
Getting guilty people off or convicting innocent people because of ones ability to make the best legal argument they can strikes me like a legal pyramid scheme. That it's legal and lucrative doesn't get it over the moral and ethical bar for me. Which also happens to be one of my most frequent sources of contention with those on the right (more recently on the left as well). Some seem to think that if something is legal and lucrative than it's basically automatically moral and ethical. First, you're editorializing the interview. There are numerous instances where, yes, she did express that the case had a deep effect on her. One of the highlights of the interview for instance is that she states she'll never trust the polygraph again after that case. To argue that it had no effect on her is silly, given the girl in question was a family friend. That being said, she was the court-appointed attorney lawyer to Taylor. Second, it is entirely ethical (in legal ethics anyways) to defend someone who you believe is guilty in the Western legal framework. As a defense attorney, your duty is not to determine the guilt of your client, but to offer up the best damned defense they can get as a citizen of this country deserving of a fair shake at representation, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Deliberately throwing a case just because of her own belief of the defendant's guilt would be a significantly greater evidence of moral bankruptcy. The more important issue raised by the interview is discussing her own opinions about the client's guilt. That's something that is questionable unless she was given permission by her client to do so. I'm not suggesting she should have thrown the case, I'm saying our "justice" system has some serious flaws that need to be reexamined (not saying I have some magic bullet, but thinking it's the best it could be seems pretty absurd). So simply saying "that's how it works" only goes so far. Slavery was "just how it works" but it doesn't mean people didn't wrestle with how seeing humans treated that way made them feel as part of such a society, legally enshrined or not. Things got better because enough people said "Hey, this 'how it works' isn't really working", I'm saying our justice system needs people who think like that, not people who aren't torn by how it's current incarnation has them pleased about freeing a child rapist because "it's how it works" imo. But sure, there's always the discussing her clients guilt if that's what people want to note as potentially unethical. I would be the first person to note that there are plenty of issues with the state of the US criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing, drug criminalization, absurdly high (absolute and per-population) rates of incarceration, the disenfranchisement and marginalization of formerly incarcerated individuals, and a lack of rehabilitative services. But the insinuation that defense lawyers shouldn't do their best to defend their clients is the exact opposite of what we need. Yes, sometimes the basic premise of Western law, in "innocent until proven guilty", allows someone guilty to walk away. But someone's guilt must be determined in a court of law, and it is preferable to someone innocent going to jail over a crime they did not commit (which still happens all too often, especially with the pervasiveness of plea deals and harsh sentencing laws in the US now). Arguing against this leads us down a dark, slippery slope.
I'm not entirely put off by the generic outline of an adversarial model, but as noted by all the problems you listed it's in desperate need of improvement.
I'm not saying she shouldn't have done her best, or that she acted inappropriately at all in her role as his defense lawyer at trial. My point is about not being more bothered about how it works. Like the example I gave about a someone having to fire a quality employee (who will be f***ed) because it's the boss' job.
It's fine to accept it's an unfortunate reality of providing for ones family, it's another thing altogether to laugh with your buddies at the bar about how you worked the system to make it legal. Not sure why I'm bothering with this though, it's pretty low on the list of my own issues with Hillary.
On May 14 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is the standard response without the "did you live through it!?" The people she was calling super predators were black youth who grew up in abusive communities, they were victims first. Who cares? If they pose a threat, it doesn't matter why they are a threat. They were a threat to their communities, the people who went to the government for help and played a role in designing and implementing the crime bill. There wasn't time to do some kinda outreach to fix broken communities. Murders were happening that day. The communities themselves wanted the crime bill.
I care. Millions of Americans care. It does matter why they are a threat, this thinking is exactly what was wrong with her comment and a significant part of why it was so absurd. Ignoring how they got that way is a big part of how they got that way in the first place, and why we have so many of the problems Lord listed.
This "there wasn't time" is such unbelievable crap (something I would expect out of Trump) I can't even believe you said it.
On May 14 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 14 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean the quote isn't accurate but it's pretty much what she said.
The actual quote I presume it's referring to is.
Roy: "How did it turn out"
Hillary: "Oh he plea bargained. I got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail for about 2 months"
She laughed when she talked about how she basically knew he was guilty, but that didn't matter. She knew she set a rapist free and didn't appear to be bothered by it at all. People can take that for what they will. I personally would have a deep sense of anger at the system for helping to destroy a young girls life, more than a sense of pride/ease exposing incompetence within the system in order to free someone you believe to be a child rapist. Suppose that's one of several reasons I'm not a criminal lawyer.
Getting guilty people off or convicting innocent people because of ones ability to make the best legal argument they can strikes me like a legal pyramid scheme. That it's legal and lucrative doesn't get it over the moral and ethical bar for me. Which also happens to be one of my most frequent sources of contention with those on the right (more recently on the left as well). Some seem to think that if something is legal and lucrative than it's basically automatically moral and ethical. First, you're editorializing the interview. There are numerous instances where, yes, she did express that the case had a deep effect on her. One of the highlights of the interview for instance is that she states she'll never trust the polygraph again after that case. To argue that it had no effect on her is silly, given the girl in question was a family friend. That being said, she was the court-appointed attorney lawyer to Taylor. Second, it is entirely ethical (in legal ethics anyways) to defend someone who you believe is guilty in the Western legal framework. As a defense attorney, your duty is not to determine the guilt of your client, but to offer up the best damned defense they can get as a citizen of this country deserving of a fair shake at representation, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Deliberately throwing a case just because of her own belief of the defendant's guilt would be a significantly greater evidence of moral bankruptcy. The more important issue raised by the interview is discussing her own opinions about the client's guilt. That's something that is questionable unless she was given permission by her client to do so. I'm not suggesting she should have thrown the case, I'm saying our "justice" system has some serious flaws that need to be reexamined (not saying I have some magic bullet, but thinking it's the best it could be seems pretty absurd). So simply saying "that's how it works" only goes so far. Slavery was "just how it works" but it doesn't mean people didn't wrestle with how seeing humans treated that way made them feel as part of such a society, legally enshrined or not. Things got better because enough people said "Hey, this 'how it works' isn't really working", I'm saying our justice system needs people who think like that, not people who aren't torn by how it's current incarnation has them pleased about freeing a child rapist because "it's how it works" imo. But sure, there's always the discussing her clients guilt if that's what people want to note as potentially unethical. I would be the first person to note that there are plenty of issues with the state of the US criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing, drug criminalization, absurdly high (absolute and per-population) rates of incarceration, the disenfranchisement and marginalization of formerly incarcerated individuals, and a lack of rehabilitative services. But the insinuation that defense lawyers shouldn't do their best to defend their clients is the exact opposite of what we need. Yes, sometimes the basic premise of Western law, in "innocent until proven guilty", allows someone guilty to walk away. But someone's guilt must be determined in a court of law, and it is preferable to someone innocent going to jail over a crime they did not commit (which still happens all too often, especially with the pervasiveness of plea deals and harsh sentencing laws in the US now). Arguing against this leads us down a dark, slippery slope. I'm not entirely put off by the generic outline of an adversarial model, but as noted by all the problems you listed it's in desperate need of improvement. I'm not saying she shouldn't have done her best, or that she acted inappropriately at all in her role as his defense lawyer at trial. My point is about not being more bothered about how it works. Like the example I gave about a someone having to fire a quality employee (who will be f***ed) because it's the boss' job. It's fine to accept it's an unfortunate reality of providing for ones family, it's another thing altogether to laugh with your buddies at the bar about how you worked the system to make it legal. Not sure why I'm bothering with this though, it's pretty low on the list of my own issues with Hillary. seeing as Hillary wasn't laughing at the bar with her buddies about it, there isn't really an issue. That there are other issues with the Justice system is a good discussion, just not really on point; and hence can easily lead to confusion if one isn't clear about what one's claims are.
Perhaps you're not familiar with analogies? Whether she was at a bar or not wasn't the point. But I'm done with that, not worth my keystrokes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 14 2016 07:53 SolaR- wrote:
So what do you think of hillary's views on gay marriage? She seems to go on the political tide of what is popular at the time.
better than bernie's.
|
On May 14 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 14 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean the quote isn't accurate but it's pretty much what she said.
The actual quote I presume it's referring to is.
Roy: "How did it turn out"
Hillary: "Oh he plea bargained. I got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail for about 2 months"
She laughed when she talked about how she basically knew he was guilty, but that didn't matter. She knew she set a rapist free and didn't appear to be bothered by it at all. People can take that for what they will. I personally would have a deep sense of anger at the system for helping to destroy a young girls life, more than a sense of pride/ease exposing incompetence within the system in order to free someone you believe to be a child rapist. Suppose that's one of several reasons I'm not a criminal lawyer.
Getting guilty people off or convicting innocent people because of ones ability to make the best legal argument they can strikes me like a legal pyramid scheme. That it's legal and lucrative doesn't get it over the moral and ethical bar for me. Which also happens to be one of my most frequent sources of contention with those on the right (more recently on the left as well). Some seem to think that if something is legal and lucrative than it's basically automatically moral and ethical. First, you're editorializing the interview. There are numerous instances where, yes, she did express that the case had a deep effect on her. One of the highlights of the interview for instance is that she states she'll never trust the polygraph again after that case. To argue that it had no effect on her is silly, given the girl in question was a family friend. That being said, she was the court-appointed attorney lawyer to Taylor. Second, it is entirely ethical (in legal ethics anyways) to defend someone who you believe is guilty in the Western legal framework. As a defense attorney, your duty is not to determine the guilt of your client, but to offer up the best damned defense they can get as a citizen of this country deserving of a fair shake at representation, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Deliberately throwing a case just because of her own belief of the defendant's guilt would be a significantly greater evidence of moral bankruptcy. The more important issue raised by the interview is discussing her own opinions about the client's guilt. That's something that is questionable unless she was given permission by her client to do so. I'm not suggesting she should have thrown the case, I'm saying our "justice" system has some serious flaws that need to be reexamined (not saying I have some magic bullet, but thinking it's the best it could be seems pretty absurd). So simply saying "that's how it works" only goes so far. Slavery was "just how it works" but it doesn't mean people didn't wrestle with how seeing humans treated that way made them feel as part of such a society, legally enshrined or not. Things got better because enough people said "Hey, this 'how it works' isn't really working", I'm saying our justice system needs people who think like that, not people who aren't torn by how it's current incarnation has them pleased about freeing a child rapist because "it's how it works" imo. But sure, there's always the discussing her clients guilt if that's what people want to note as potentially unethical. I would be the first person to note that there are plenty of issues with the state of the US criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing, drug criminalization, absurdly high (absolute and per-population) rates of incarceration, the disenfranchisement and marginalization of formerly incarcerated individuals, and a lack of rehabilitative services. But the insinuation that defense lawyers shouldn't do their best to defend their clients is the exact opposite of what we need. Yes, sometimes the basic premise of Western law, in "innocent until proven guilty", allows someone guilty to walk away. But someone's guilt must be determined in a court of law, and it is preferable to someone innocent going to jail over a crime they did not commit (which still happens all too often, especially with the pervasiveness of plea deals and harsh sentencing laws in the US now). Arguing against this leads us down a dark, slippery slope. I'm not entirely put off by the generic outline of an adversarial model, but as noted by all the problems you listed it's in desperate need of improvement. I'm not saying she shouldn't have done her best, or that she acted inappropriately at all in her role as his defense lawyer at trial. My point is about not being more bothered about how it works. Like the example I gave about a someone having to fire a quality employee (who will be f***ed) because it's the boss' job. It's fine to accept it's an unfortunate reality of providing for ones family, it's another thing altogether to laugh with your buddies at the bar about how you worked the system to make it legal. Not sure why I'm bothering with this though, it's pretty low on the list of my own issues with Hillary.
seeing as Hillary wasn't laughing at the bar with her buddies about it, there isn't really an issue.
That there are other issues with the Justice system is a good discussion, just not really on point; and hence can easily lead to confusion if one isn't clear about what one's claims are.
|
On May 14 2016 07:54 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:49 kwizach wrote:On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:10 kwizach wrote:On May 14 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg She was talking about black youth No, she was talking about young gang members. + Show Spoiler [More context] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno Yeah, black youth gang members. You are trying to paint her statement as having something to do in itself with skin color. It did not. She was targeting gang members for being gang members, not for their skin color. The question is: If they were white, would they still be referred to as super predators? Can you honestly answer that question with a yes?
Yes.
edit: to be clear, I am talking about Hillary's use of the word. I'm not denying it has also been used with racial undertones.
|
On May 14 2016 07:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:53 SolaR- wrote:
So what do you think of hillary's views on gay marriage? She seems to go on the political tide of what is popular at the time. better than bernie's.
I don't follow bernie's campaign much. He is probably who I would support if trump wasn't running though. As I agree a lot with him on social issues. I cringe at his economics and foreign policy.
I was under the impression that bernie has been pretty consistent through the years on human rights. Can you enlighten me on the the contrary?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 14 2016 08:02 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:57 oneofthem wrote:On May 14 2016 07:53 SolaR- wrote:
So what do you think of hillary's views on gay marriage? She seems to go on the political tide of what is popular at the time. better than bernie's. I don't follow bernie's campaign much. He is probably who I would support if trump wasn't running though. As I agree a lot with him on social issues. I cringe at his economics and foreign policy. I was under the impression that bernie has been pretty consistent through the years on human rights. Can you enlighten me on the the contrary?
bernie or hillary coming out as for gay marriage in 1990 would be pointless and yield nothing. in terms of actual impact on lgbt issues and aids etc, action speaks louder than words.
the much maligned clinton foundation has done incredible work for global aids and lgbt rights issues. as a politician she's been pretty consistent in finding money for lgbt causes and aids. some even rumor that she's a lesbian herself.
as far as words, here's an activist's memory on the two,
“For folks who are going to vote solely on a candidate’s HIV/AIDS record, including Secretary Clinton’s horrific revisionist statement about Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Bernie Sanders was elected to Congress in 1991, during some of the darkest days of the AIDS epidemic. While our brothers and sisters were dying and we were fighting for our lives, Senator Sanders was largely silent. I do not recall him demonstrating any leadership on this issue. On the other hand, Secretary Clinton has been there on this issue, every step of the way. I first met Secretary Clinton at AIDS Project Los Angeles in 1992 during Bill Clinton’s first presidential bid. Secretary Clinton demonstrated leadership then and continued to fight with and for us on this issue as first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. When my lover Chris Brownlie died in 1989, President and Mrs. Clinton sent me a letter. Where was Senator Sanders? There are probably many reasons to vote or against Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders, but if your litmus test is their track record on HIV/AIDS, we should be angry and hurt, but it would be nice if we could also be fair.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-ocamb/hillary-clintons-record-on-aids_b_9463134.html
|
On May 14 2016 08:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:54 SolaR- wrote:On May 14 2016 07:49 kwizach wrote:On May 14 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 07:10 kwizach wrote:On May 14 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg She was talking about black youth No, she was talking about young gang members. + Show Spoiler [More context] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno Yeah, black youth gang members. You are trying to paint her statement as having something to do in itself with skin color. It did not. She was targeting gang members for being gang members, not for their skin color. The question is: If they were white, would they still be referred to as super predators? Can you honestly answer that question with a yes? Yes. edit: to be clear, I am talking about Hillary's use of the word. I'm not denying it has also been used with racial undertones.
What makes you feel so sure that Hillary was not using the term under the same context?
|
On May 14 2016 08:02 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 07:57 oneofthem wrote:On May 14 2016 07:53 SolaR- wrote:
So what do you think of hillary's views on gay marriage? She seems to go on the political tide of what is popular at the time. better than bernie's. I don't follow bernie's campaign much. He is probably who I would support if trump wasn't running though. As I agree a lot with him on social issues. I cringe at his economics and foreign policy. I was under the impression that bernie has been pretty consistent through the years on human rights. Can you enlighten me on the the contrary?
1) He opposed DOMA (which he's focused on in the campaign trail) on the grounds of state's rights, as opposed to any admission of belief of LGBT rights.
2) As late as 2006, he opposed marriage equality laws in Vermont. Instead he endorsed "civil union" laws due to same-sex marriage being "too divisive" or something to that effect.
Decent Slate blog post on his record:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
Both Clinton and Sanders changed their views on LGBT rights with the times, and any arguments that either of them were long-time champions of LGBT rights is just disingenuous straightsplaining.
EDIT: I'm sure the Clinton Foundation has done work in the area, but really, she didn't publicly come out for LGBT rights until the 4th quarter of the game. Part of it, no doubt, was that she was working as SoS and Obama had not yet made a public statement on the subject and it would be uncouth to come out before that, but still. Marginally worse than Sanders, who didn't fully endorse it until 2009 (which if we're continuing with the football game analogy, late 3rd quarter).
That being said, her credentials in the area are fine despite her late support and I have no qualms voting for her because of it, especially considering Trump. The same would've gone for Sanders.
Just, don't use the narrative of either of them being shining beacons of progressive LGBT advocacy. That road was paved by other individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
