| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Unless she was part of the prosecution, or else used unethical practices to defend her client, she cannot help it if the prosecution did a poor job of defence. She cannot play both sides of the court room, nor did she pronounce sentence. It was her job to defend, which she did. It was the other lawyer(s) job to prosecute. It was they who helped a child molester walk free. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21668 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:45 bardtown wrote: Trump dodged taxes using legal loopholes. Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Morally, I'd take Trump. No doubt she's smarter, though, but Trump spews unprocessed meaningless drivel; Hillary spews well calculated, well acted lies. The whole campaign process is so incredibly shady, too. So much money from so many questionable sources. Personally, I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them without feeling at least a little sick. So you do not believe in due process? Seems kinda deplorable. Edit: Lets be clear here. She was assigned as his lawyer, tried get to get taken off the case, was refused and did her duty as a lawyer to represent her client in court. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:45 bardtown wrote: Trump dodged taxes using legal loopholes. Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Morally, I'd take Trump. No doubt she's smarter, though, but Trump spews unprocessed meaningless drivel; Hillary spews well calculated, well acted lies. The whole campaign process is so incredibly shady, too. So much money from so many questionable sources. Personally, I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them without feeling at least a little sick. She was assigned by the judge and asked to be taken off it. The Judge refused. The state’s case was botched and that is the job of defense attorneys to defend everyone. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
There were a lot of surprised reactions this year after the Dem convention when people pointed out the focus on constitutional values, I don't think that's very surprising. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus. Funny, because most of the Trump supporters do the same thing. Am I crazy for saying in the lesser of two evils kind of race, Trump is immensely more qualified to lead in every way? Clinton apologists, like yourself, baffle me? And yes, people here will say I'm crazy just as I call you crazy on similar lines. So we take our disagreements to the ballot box, may the best deplorable win. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:56 bardtown wrote: You're all sick, actually. Who jumps to the defence of a lawyer who laughs about getting someone off who they were convinced raped a child? You're defending her because you hate Trump, and you ought to take a long hard look at yourselves. She didn’t laugh about that, she was laughing about the DA’s poor handling of the case and that he was a bit of a clown. From how the case went, it sounds like he was outclassed and the police did him no favors by mishandling the evidence. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5583 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:56 bardtown wrote: You're all sick, actually. Who jumps to the defence of a lawyer who laughs about getting someone off who they were convinced raped a child? You're defending her because you hate Trump, and you ought to take a long hard look at yourselves. You realize that the guy pled guilty in that case, right? He didn't get off at all. Any failure to get a proper sentence from a guilty plea is entirely on the prosecution for having a weak case. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote: You realize that the guy pled guilty in that case, right? He didn't get off at all. Bardtown saw a clip of Hillary laughing, that's all he needs, right?  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:05 farvacola wrote: Bardtown saw a clip of Hillary laughing, that's all he needs, right? That one keeps coming up like being a defense attorney isn’t the most American thing an attorney can do. It is gross that the GOP is using something John Adams championed and is required by the Constitution as ammo to win an election. It is both cynical and un-American. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:05 farvacola wrote: Bardtown saw a clip of Hillary laughing, that's all he needs, right? It's enough for me. The day I laugh when reminiscing about a 12 year old girl's rapist getting off lightly will be the day I blow my brains out. Of course we all have our own principles, so if you can respect someone who behaves like that, that's on you. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On October 06 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote: Someone (GH maybe) used to post photos of his events with the big crowd shown from one angle and then another angle showing the other 90% of the arena empty. Not quite 90% but yup, no way in hell it was anywhere near 30k. Trump supporters imagine this in their head when they think of that rally ![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/22/03/2B909A5F00000578-3206742-The_40_000_seat_Ladd_Peebles_Stadium_was_about_half_full_when_Tr-m-3_1440211981537.jpg) Then there's the reality: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rUthUUG.jpg) Stadium holds 40k. Trump is a habitual liar about his rallies, Hillary just lets the media do the job for her by staging her crowd shots to look full when she's frequently playing to a near empty venue. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13926 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote: Not quite 90% but yup, no way in hell it was anywhere near 30k. Trump supporters imagine this in their head when they think of that rally Then there's the reality: Stadium holds 40k. Trump is a habitual liar about his rallies, Hillary just lets the media do the job for her by staging her crowd shots to look full when she's frequently playing to a near empty venue. To be fair that does look like 15-20k or so people in the stands and a ton of people that are on the ground if it does fit 40k at capacity. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:12 bardtown wrote: It's enough for me. The day I laugh when reminiscing about a 12 year old girl's rapist getting off lightly will be the day I blow my brains out. Of course we all have our own principles, so if you can respect someone who behaves like that, that's on you. Glad to see you have found a way to feel superior to John Adams and every defense attorney in the US through all of history. They joked about their work in private too, even if it was tragic. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:19 Sermokala wrote: To be fair that does look like 15-20k or so people in the stands and a ton of people that are on the ground if it does fit 40k at capacity. There isn't a ton of people on the ground. Like 2k max or something. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17983 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:56 bardtown wrote: You're all sick, actually. Who jumps to the defence of a lawyer who laughs about getting someone off who they were convinced raped a child? You're defending her because you hate Trump, and you ought to take a long hard look at yourselves. I dislike the lawyers of the underworld: those who take the cases of people they know are guilty, but have plenty of (drug) money to pay them incredibly well. But even the most degenerate scum has the right to fair representation and I don't think it's unethical at all to do that. She was assigned the case, and did her job. Case closed. And no, she didn't laugh about it. She laughed about something else in the same interview (the absurdity of polygraph tests). | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13926 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:20 Nebuchad wrote: There isn't a ton of people on the ground. Like 2k max or something. we can agree to disagree then because I can't really tell where the people end and the stage/platform begin on that picture on the ground. I'd say its enough to at least say its more then 20k at that rally though. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On October 06 2016 04:56 bardtown wrote: You're all sick, actually. Who jumps to the defence of a lawyer who laughs about getting someone off who they were convinced raped a child? You're defending her because you hate Trump, and you ought to take a long hard look at yourselves. I'm not defending a lawyer who laughs. I am defending the justice system that begins with 'innocent until proven guilty', which has the unfortunate side effect of letting certain guilty parties walk free but locks away less innocent people. I mean, isn't that one of the big complaints these days? That men accused of heinous acts are more likely to be disbelieved despite being innocent? It's for all those other men who may be falsely accused that a lawyer is required to defend. If we believe in due process, than the process must be gone through, bugs and all so that we can be secure in the knowledge (within reasonable doubt) that the people we lock away were not falsely accused and pre-judged. But someone has to do the dirty of work of defending real and heinous criminals so that the system can filter out the innocent. But we cannot really know if they are guilty or not until they have had a fair trial... and that requires a defence lawyer. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
