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 July 29 2016 20:58 Chris1 wrote: "He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter]."
Come on, you really think Hilary though this guy was innocent. She's very smart when it comes to these things, she knew he was guilty, she found loopholes in the system to get him off, but is it morally right, did she really let a rapist get off?
On July 29 2016 20:58 Chris1 wrote: "He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter]."
Come on, you really think Hilary though this guy was innocent. She's very smart when it comes to these things, she knew he was guilty, she found loopholes in the system to get him off, but is it morally right, did she really let a rapist get off?
Do you know what lawyers do?
I agree. It's what lawyers do.
But!
One would think that someone would be at least a tiny bit more devastated after defending a guy who allegedly fucked a kid, especially if you then go ahead and make the "i'm such a defender for children!" one of your mottos.
I think it's extremely dishonest from people like you, who don't want to see the difference between someone laughing off the destruction of a life and being morally even challenged. Which she isn't.
The problem isn't that she defended him, that was her job and she's legally required to do it. It's the fact that she isn't disgusted. Neither by the guy, nor by herself. And that, as a matter of fact, is also something "lawyers do". I've yet to meet a lawyer who's fine after winning a case where he knew the accused is guilty. A friend (lawyer) told me once that he's shocked that this is how "justice" works.
So, yes. You're partially right: again, she did what she had to do. So do we all. But we usually don't brag about it, or at least feel the slightest hint of guilt or empathy for whoever we fucked over - in this case, the 12 year old.
On July 29 2016 20:58 Chris1 wrote: "He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter]."
Come on, you really think Hilary though this guy was innocent? She's very intelligent when it comes to law, she knew he was guilty, she found loopholes in the system to get him off.
This is just one stone in a mountain of crap you can dig up on Hilary, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
I've touched upon this multiple times in the thread, but...your point? The biggest code of ethics violation is her talking about her opinions of her client, not defending her client to the best of her ability after she had to take it up (as a public defender, though she did seek to pass on the case as the victim in question was a family friend [and was denied]).
Lawyers, and most of all public defenders, are suppose to give you the best goddamned defense possible, even if they think you'e guilty as fuck. Because otherwise, how are you going to get a fair shake?
On July 29 2016 20:58 Chris1 wrote: "He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter]."
Come on, you really think Hilary though this guy was innocent. She's very smart when it comes to these things, she knew he was guilty, she found loopholes in the system to get him off, but is it morally right, did she really let a rapist get off?
Do you know what lawyers do?
I agree. It's what lawyers do.
But!
One would think that someone would be at least a tiny bit more devastated after defending a guy who allegedly fucked a kid, especially if you then go ahead and make the "i'm such a defender for children!" one of your mottos.
I think it's extremely dishonest from people like you, who don't want to see the difference between someone laughing off the destruction of a life and being morally even challenged. Which she isn't.
The problem isn't that she defended him, that was her job and she's legally required to do it. It's the fact that she isn't disgusted. Neither by the guy, nor by herself. And that, as a matter of fact, is also something "lawyers do". I've yet to meet a lawyer who's fine after winning a case where he knew the accused is guilty.
So, yes. You're partially right: again, she did what she had to do. So do we all. But we usually don't brag about it, or at least feel the slightest hint of guilt or empathy for whoever we fucked over - in this case, the 12 year old.
I thought it was clear she did in that interview?
Laughter can have many connotations. In context, it sounds very much like a bitter laugh.
On July 29 2016 20:58 Chris1 wrote: "He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter]."
Come on, you really think Hilary though this guy was innocent? She's very intelligent when it comes to law, she knew he was guilty, she found loopholes in the system to get him off.
This is just one stone in a mountain of crap you can dig up on Hilary, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
You don't seem to understand what a public defenders job is. A lawyer has one job, and that is to get the best possible result for your client out of the court system. That includes cases where the lawyer himself thinks that his client is guilty. Now, one might argue that such a system is obviously biased in favour of those who can afford the best lawyers, and indeed it is. That is a very big problem.
One of the attempts to remedy that is by providing public lawyers for those who can not afford a lawyer of their own. Those are often not the best lawyers, because otherwise they would make a lot more money by not being public defenders.
But still, a lawyer has a duty to not be impartial. It is a lawyers job to do best for their client. That is necessary for a justice system like the one in the US to work. This leads to shitty situations and conflicts of interest when defending an obviously guilty person. But you still have to try to get the best possible result for that person, because that is your position in the legal system. That is what lawyers do.
Laughter can have many connotations. In context, it sounds very much like a bitter laugh.
That's arguable, and subjective. Both what you deduct from the interview, and if that was a bitter laugh, because to me clearly it didn't sound like that.
edit: in fact, that's something that makes her extremely unlikable. She's like Merkel in that regard. Zero visible or audible empathy. If Obama is "sad", you can see and hear that. Regardless if it's acting or not. Hillary, like Merkel, is like a robot.
Laughter can have many connotations. In context, it sounds very much like a bitter laugh.
That's arguable, and subjective. Both what you deduct from the interview, and if that was a bitter laugh, because to me clearly it didn't sound like that.
edit: in fact, that's something that makes her extremely unlikable. She's like Merkel in that regard. Zero visible or audible empathy. If Obama is "sad", you can see and hear that. Regardless if it's acting or not. Hillary, like Merkel, is like a robot.
Lawyers deal with some dark things and sometimes they laugh about them. I think it is extremely harsh to find it totally inappropriate for some humor in a pretty rough case. And the laughter seemed to be directed at the incompetence of the opposing counsel on the case.
Laughter can have many connotations. In context, it sounds very much like a bitter laugh.
That's arguable, and subjective. Both what you deduct from the interview, and if that was a bitter laugh, because to me clearly it didn't sound like that.
edit: in fact, that's something that makes her extremely unlikable. She's like Merkel in that regard. Zero visible or audible empathy. If Obama is "sad", you can see and hear that. Regardless if it's acting or not. Hillary, like Merkel, is like a robot.
Given that you've now admitted that interpreting her cherry picked reaction is arguable and subjective, it should be pretty clear why highlighting the oftentimes very difficult to navigate moral implications of defense lawyering is not "incredibly dishonest." It genuinely seems like the poster of the video doesn't understand how our legal system works, so I asked.
It's also worth mentioning that weighing the importance of apparent empathy in relation to leadership skills generally is also arguable and subjective.
On July 29 2016 17:40 NukeD wrote: Hillary Clinton is posibly the worst presidential candidate ever.
No she is possibly the worst person ever. She is worst than Hitler. And more crual than Stalin. And I heard she ears little children for breakfast.
Get real, she is as qualified for the job as it gets and more, very much unlike the Austin Power villain you want to see near the nuclear button.
Hitler turned out to be bad after he got into power, aswell as Stalin. They probably looked decent as "candidates".
However, in the candidation stage of things, Hillary takes the no1 spot.
Hitler was appointed, not elected, Chancellor despite the NSDAP being deep in the minority and his obvious racism and violent paramilitary tendencies (all in order to Make Germany Great Again, of course), because the leaders of various right/right-centrist parties and politicians believed he could be controlled and reigned in, and would serve as a populist frontman and puppet for them to actually rule and govern.
The comparisons here shouldn't be made, when there are much more readily-made and relevant parallels made to Trump here. Especially when it comes to his...malleable political ideology.
Laughter can have many connotations. In context, it sounds very much like a bitter laugh.
That's arguable, and subjective. Both what you deduct from the interview, and if that was a bitter laugh, because to me clearly it didn't sound like that.
edit: in fact, that's something that makes her extremely unlikable. She's like Merkel in that regard. Zero visible or audible empathy. If Obama is "sad", you can see and hear that. Regardless if it's acting or not. Hillary, like Merkel, is like a robot.
Given that you've now admitted that interpreting her cherry picked reaction is arguable and subjective, it should be pretty clear why highlighting the oftentimes very difficult to navigate moral implications of defense lawyering is not "incredibly dishonest." It genuinely seems like the poster of the video doesn't understand how our legal system works, so I asked.
It's also worth mentioning that weighing the importance of apparent empathy in relation to leadership skills generally is also arguable and subjective.
I've given you an, even if anecdotal, example that lawyers certainly do feel bad usually if they defend something that doesn't go in line with their personal morals. In fact i'd argue that someone who can just bury his/her morals under the disguise of "it's just a job" is an incredibly dishonest person and certainly not someone i'd like to give power to start wars.
To be clear: i don't think that trump is any better in that regard. I'm trying to point out that HRC is not an ounce better.
Oh, and empathy is an incredibly important trait for leadership. Or, lets say, charisma. Of which HRC has none either. Which is horrendously obvious if she's talking with, or right after, someone who has spades of it.
Or do you want to tell me otherwise?
Your angry at her for doing a good Job.
Yeah, right. I'll ignore your comments until you actually understand what i've said. Farva did, so you are the problem, not what i said. It's one thing to disagree, it's another entirely to not understand what is said and then throw one straw man after another.
Laughter can have many connotations. In context, it sounds very much like a bitter laugh.
That's arguable, and subjective. Both what you deduct from the interview, and if that was a bitter laugh, because to me clearly it didn't sound like that.
edit: in fact, that's something that makes her extremely unlikable. She's like Merkel in that regard. Zero visible or audible empathy. If Obama is "sad", you can see and hear that. Regardless if it's acting or not. Hillary, like Merkel, is like a robot.
Lawyers deal with some dark things and sometimes they laugh about them. I think it is extremely harsh to find it totally inappropriate for some humor in a pretty rough case. And the laughter seemed to be directed at the incompetence of the opposing counsel on the case.
I hate it when i have to agree with Plansix but being a lawyer aswell (apprentice still) it is true what he says. Its just a job and it extremelly hard to get emotionally connected with any party you are dealing with. Is it innapropriate? Yes, but we are human and real life doesn't work like TV shows. In reallity most people are half assed into any job and any legal case, they go through the motions without connecting to the actors. If you watched the series The Wire, that is the most realistic portrayal of how people actually work. In shows like CSI Miami, Law and order, Greys anatomy and others, people are always super invested in their job and thats all they care about while being super serious about themselves, however in real life its quite the opposite. Further if you have seen The Wire the scene where they find out they just got 10+ new unresolved homicides that they now have to work on and how everyone was anoyed by it, rather than how John Caruso salivates over every new murder case, is also how it works for lawyers in most cases.
On July 29 2016 17:40 NukeD wrote: Hillary Clinton is posibly the worst presidential candidate ever.
No she is possibly the worst person ever. She is worst than Hitler. And more crual than Stalin. And I heard she ears little children for breakfast.
Get real, she is as qualified for the job as it gets and more, very much unlike the Austin Power villain you want to see near the nuclear button.
Hitler turned out to be bad after he got into power, aswell as Stalin. They probably looked decent as "candidates".
However, in the candidation stage of things, Hillary takes the no1 spot.
Hitler was appointed, not elected, Chancellor despite the NSDAP being deep in the minority and his obvious racism and violent paramilitary tendencies (all in order to Make Germany Great Again, of course), because the leaders of various right/right-centrist parties and politicians believed he could be controlled and reigned in, and would serve as a populist frontman and puppet for them to actually rule and govern.
The comparisons here shouldn't be made, when there are much more readily-made and relevant parallels made to Trump here. Especially when it comes to his...malleable political ideology.
Meanwhile, Stalin was never elected lol.
Thats why I put the little things "" (annotations? I dont know what they are called) when writing candidates.
EPT
