|
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 October 06 2016 05:12 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:05 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. 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.
unless you are volunteering to be judge jury and executioner someone has to defend him.
and in the case that you are, then in fact it is you who needs some
introspection.
|
I don't think people are reacting insomuch as to her defending the guy, they just think that Clinton should feel bad about having to defend him as part of her job.
|
On October 06 2016 05:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2016 02:25 biology]major wrote:
There is nothing to lie about, Trump crowds are indeed massive. There are usually thousands of people who can't even get in. There might be no translation into extra votes, but there is not even a contest in rallies. 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. 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.
You could probably fit everyone on the ground just in the empty spaces on the "full" side. Maaaybe 20k, but 33% inflated is straight nonsense. They said 30k so they could say Trump had bigger rallies than Bernie, he didn't.
|
I think she simply treated it like a case she won which seems like a good thing. If you're going to defend someone you know to be a rapist and you need to stay impartial I don't really see how that's possible if you start to galvanise about it.
|
United States42007 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.
Yeah, you need to learn how the rule of law works because you clearly weren't awake during civics classes.
On October 04 2016 06:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney? Doing anything less than your utmost to defend a child rapist is granting them a free mistrial. As a lawyer if you want to see justice served you need to do everything in your power to fulfill your role in that, that way once they're found guilty we can lock them up for the rest of their life with no remorse or doubt. The reason we give the accused the best defence we can is so we can say "fuck that guy" with a clean conscience once they're found guilty. Undermining the defence undermines the moral authority to condemn the individual and may allow them to walk free. It's especially important to do it by the book for shitty individuals.
|
I'm sorry but this one is too easy not to play devil's advocate with. You can't even "imagine" how someone could favour Trump?
Which one of the two, honestly and conspiracies aside, has had more innocent people murdered in cold blood?
Which one of the two owes more favours and money to the most rotten and powerful pillars of the establishment?
Answer these two and you might gain some fresh perspective on why Dolan is a very real candidate this election.
I'm not in favour of Trump by any means but if you can't see Hillary is a profoundly psychopathic individual whose "intelligence" should be seen as a scary rather than helpful trait you are simply deluded. By this point I'm so disappointed in both I would abstain from voting if I were American.
|
On October 06 2016 05:42 Nyxisto wrote:
I think she simply treated it like a case she won which seems like a good thing. If you're going to defend someone you know to be a rapist and you need to stay impartial I don't really see how that's possible if you start to galvanise about it.
Once one remembers that a lot of the folks that take issue with Hillary's recorded laughter are the same people who think food stamps shouldn't be given to people who don't look poor enough, it all starts to make sense.
|
United States42007 Posts
If any of you guys frequent the UK Politics thread bardtown's posts make a lot more sense. He's like the resident Cowboy24 or whatever of there.
|
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system".
|
And also concerning the reaction to the case, many people will say the same things about surgeons, how they seem casual, treat people like meat or like they're mechanics and so on, but that's simply the best way to do jobs that require a clear head and this works best if people treat these things in a 'playful' manner. If they'd obsess about their clients they'd not be able to do their jobs.
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man
That's why we don't let those people pass judgement.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system".
At worst you could say it was in poor taste.
|
United States42007 Posts
On October 06 2016 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system".
We don't ask the opinion of the victim's father, especially when the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty. Consider the same issue from the opposite end, the prosecutor thinks the guy is innocent so he throws the case. Do you think the father would be fine with that? If not, how come it's fine for the defending lawyer to throw the case because she thinks he's guilty, but not the prosecuting lawyer to throw it because he thinks the guy is innocent.
What people need to realize is that the only people who get to decide are the jurors. The opinions of the father, the lawyers and everyone else involved don't matter at all. The job is simply to give the jurors the best prosecution you can and the best defense you can and then get out of the way. Anything other than that and you have the lawyers deciding who is guilty and who is innocent before the jurors get to take a look at it, and that's not a road we want to go down, not least because the child rapist would get a mistrial and be set free.
|
On October 06 2016 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system".
Certainly. your entirely correct. I would probably hate her for it.
But that is why we have courts and judges rather then letting the father of the victim decide on guilt.
I think the current situation tends to work out better in the long run.
|
On October 06 2016 04:45 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/03/08/donald-trump-and-the-empty-jewelry-box-tax-scam/#61b05ed6aa75
Trump is also a tax cheat, this is a relatively minor incident, but there are so many examples of scams involving Trump that it is easy to believe there is more out there. I imagine journalists will eventually find more incriminating information as Trump gets under ever closer scrutiny.
|
On October 06 2016 02:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:15 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:45 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2016 01:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:16 oBlade wrote:On October 06 2016 00:53 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 00:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/04/nigel_farage_will_attend_second_debate_as_trumps_guest_rise_above_the_catfight.htmlNigel Farage Will Attend Second Debate As Trump's Guest The leader behind 'Brexit' speaks with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto about his advice for Donald Trump ahead of the second presidential debate. Farage will attend the debate as a guest of Mr. Trump.
"The advice I have for Donald Trump, I don't have to give it to him face-to-face," the UKIP leader said. "I will share it with you right now on this show, it is very simple. The Clinton team analyzed that Trump is a proud man -- proud of his achievements, proud of himself, proud of his family. And if you attack him on his record, try to tear to bits his business empire and his past, he will try to defend himself."
He continued: "My advice to Mr. Trump is dead simple: Do not be accused of financial impropriety by the Clintons. Do not be told you are a misogynist by a woman whose Foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia. Rise above, don't get involved in some sort of terrible catfight. Rise above it and tell the American people why you are the candidate for change." Great. So the guy who fled the UK in disgrace after the Brexit campaign, is an honored guest of the other populist demagogue on the other side of the pond. I guess birds of a feather flock together. Fled in disgrace... the goal of his career, that he campaigned for for decades... And having attained this crowning achievement, instead of seeing it come to pass, he resigned from leading his party and ran away from the UK. E: I'm sure KwarK has more to say on the matter. I am not particularly well versed on the details, but insofar as I know the fallout from the Brexit campaign was nobody at all being happy with the results, ironically least of all the pro-Brexit campaigners. But are there vocal right-wingers on TL that supported UKIP/Farage's MEP campaign? The takeaway in today's era of hyperpartisanship, very visible in this thread, is not to take at face value critics with bare agendas in isoluation. I'd like to at least hear the other side before coming to a conclusion. Two big players abruptly quit and it looks bad. If they did it in an altruistic desire for political unity and to foster new alliances free of their influence, I suspect they'd still be called cowards leaving messes at the doorsteps of others. While there's something to be said for Cameron stepping down, as he was against Brexit, but "felt that the people had a right to vote on it" (or rather, he gambled with it so he could win the election, and then fell flat on his face when it didn't go as well as the Scotland referendum went for him). After campaigning against Brexit, he is clearly not the man to lead the government through the Brexit. I don't know the first thing about May (the news painted her has a bit of an opportunist in the grab for the PM spot). Farage campaigned most of his political career for the Brexit. People voted for the Brexit. Rather than saying "right, now lets do this properly. Here´s how UKIP would tackle this Brexit: <policy>", he said "errrmmm, I want to spend more time with my family. cya, wouldn't wanna be ya". As all other populists in Europe, he had a list of "things wrong with the country" and absolutely no clue how to fix them. Yeah it's a strong argument. But did you grasp my point? If there isn't a single UKIP/Farage voter in the forum piping up, how will you ever know if it's strong argument or just the only one currently in town? It's your opinion that Farage is populist and populists have a knack for labeling problems with no plan to fix them, and it jives with Farage leaving. That's common left-right rhetoric from the left's viewpoint. This thread is prodigiously bad at contextualizing the opposing arguments for the opposition (good at vilifying and sometimes good at satirizing). I only wish for a good-faith supporter that agrees with the damning report or disagrees and why.
Fair enough.
|
On October 06 2016 05:44 Kickboxer wrote:
I'm sorry but this one is too easy not to play devil's advocate with. You can't even "imagine" how someone could favour Trump?
Which one of the two, honestly and conspiracies aside, has had more innocent people murdered in cold blood?
Which one of the two owes more favours and money to the most rotten and powerful pillars of the establishment?
Answer these two and you might gain some fresh perspective on why Dolan is a very real candidate this election.
I'm not in favour of Trump by any means but if you can't see Hillary is a profoundly psychopathic individual whose "intelligence" should be seen as a scary rather than helpful trait you are simply deluded. By this point I'm so disappointed in both I would abstain from voting if I were American.
neither has had anyone murdered in cold blood;
and they're about equal on the second question.
not sure who dolan is; other than that he's an irrelevant nobody.
Your ability to assess whether someone is psychopathic is very poor. You also seem to be operating under a number of unfounded beliefs; but that's fine, most people are.
|
On October 06 2016 05:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system". At worst you could say it was in poor taste.
I laugh at inappropriate times so I can understand that part, but there's no way getting a child rapist out of a long sentence wouldn't make me feel terrible, even with the "I'm just doing my job" excuse.
Like being an executioner at a pound, sure it's your job to kill animals, but it's not normal for someone to laugh about how the puppy twitched or to not be severely impacted. It takes a diminished capacity for empathy for one to go about their day like killing innocent puppies isn't a messed up (even if legal and your job) thing to do with your day.
|
On October 06 2016 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system".
I worked in probation for a year and even we laughed at times. I know it’s weird, but the people who are work around criminal justice system are humans and sometimes find humor around these really horrible events. Of course they do it in private, which is what she thought she was doing.
Case and point: A guy was arrested with his son for stealing groceries(like $500). The mother bailed out the father, but not the son. So the son sat in juvenile lock up for a weekend, because they got arrested Friday night. The father comes up to me on Monday after his arraignment and says “Where did you people hide my son?”
I almost spit my coffee on the man because it was so fucking funny that he came up to me like I had hidden away his son when the Judge had just admonished him for letting his kid sit in lock up. Also that case was super sad. But at the time I almost lost it.
|
On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm not attacking a lawyer who doesn't laugh. At the very least you have to admit that it is distasteful.
|
On October 06 2016 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:52 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suspect the same people saying "she was just doing her job" would have a different opinion if it was their 12 yo daughter that was raped by a 40 yo man. I mean there's plenty of rage to go around for incompetent investigators and the prosecution, but I sincerely doubt people would hear that tape of the lawyer who got their daughters rapist off and be like "sucks, but that's her job, sorry daughter that's the justice system". At worst you could say it was in poor taste. I laugh at inappropriate times so I can understand that part, but there's no way getting a child rapist out of a long sentence wouldn't make me feel terrible, even with the "I'm just doing my job" excuse. Like being an executioner at a pound, sure it's your job to kill animals, but it's not normal for someone to laugh about how the puppy twitched or to not be severely impacted. It takes a diminished capacity for empathy for one to go about their day like killing innocent puppies isn't a messed up (even if legal and your job) thing to do with your day.
I believe prior discussions have already revealed that you're self-admittedly poorly suited to the work of an attorney, and just because someone doesn't outwardly exhibit signs that comport with your understanding of expressive empathy doesn't mean that said person is unempathetic.
On a related note, having gone through almost the entire law school process myself, these words from Clinton ring quite true.
“I was taking a law school admissions test in a big classroom at Harvard. My friend and I were some of the only women in the room. I was feeling nervous. I was a senior in college. I wasn’t sure how well I’d do. And while we’re waiting for the exam to start, a group of men began to yell things like: ‘You don’t need to be here.’ And ‘There’s plenty else you can do.’ It turned into a real ‘pile on.’ One of them even said: ‘If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam, and I'll die.’ And they weren’t kidding around. It was intense. It got very personal. But I couldn’t respond. I couldn’t afford to get distracted because I didn’t want to mess up the test. So I just kept looking down, hoping that the proctor would walk in the room. I know that I can be perceived as aloof or cold or unemotional. But I had to learn as a young woman to control my emotions. And that’s a hard path to walk. Because you need to protect yourself, you need to keep steady, but at the same time you don’t want to seem ‘walled off.’ And sometimes I think I come across more in the ‘walled off’ arena. And if I create that perception, then I take responsibility. I don’t view myself as cold or unemotional. And neither do my friends. And neither does my family. But if that sometimes is the perception I create, then I can’t blame people for thinking that.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
