|
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 06:03 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling 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. 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.
You've walked your initial statement way back. First Hillary was a disgusting human who let a child rapist free. Then people clued you into the facts of the case, and you say 'well she helped him get off easily'. With further explanation of how our justice system works and what a defense lawyer's job is you come with "well.... guys.... it was distasteful... right...?'.
|
On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling 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. 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.
Do you not understand what private discussions are?
|
Theres a very blurry line in-between using and abusing tax loopholes and being a tax cheat. Rich people have tax magicians they can afford to save as much money as possible while poor people get screwed by being ignorant of basic tax breaks that they just don't know about.
Its like using coupons. I don't know if you're suppose to just buy things that are on sale but thats all my family and culture has taught be to buy.
|
From a legal/ethical standpoint, Hillary did nothing wrong.
From a personal standpoint... well not that many people like Hillary on a personal level do they?
|
|
|
I enjoy seeing internet Trump fans question the hormone profiles of men who support Hillary. I only wish that they'd ask the same questions in person 
|
On October 06 2016 06:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, certainly so. One of two possible candidates for future US president & commander-in-chief is an "irrelevant nobody".
Also, Hillary manically laughing at videos of people getting lynched and wondering if they should just "drone that guy", while simultaneously having her hands elbow deep in several global massacres, makes it totally unlikely she is personally involved in a single civilian death.
Talk about cognitive dissonance lol.
Most people are "dumb" but you are lucky to be with the smart crowd I see. Good job on being part of the club! 
|
On October 06 2016 06:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Show nested quote +“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.”
Just curious, has she ever talked to the victim of her work? I'm fine with it not comporting to my idea, but has she said anything to indicate she comprehends what that meant for that girl? What her opinion on herself would have been had it been Chelsea instead of a stranger? For me it's about not fully appreciating the negative consequences of some of her actions. Superpredators, NAFTA, etc... There's a pattern of her seeming incapable of expressing anything that resembles real empathy for the victims of her accomplishments.
|
That's "students," not "male students."
|
On October 06 2016 06:05 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling 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. 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. You've walked your initial statement way back. First Hillary was a disgusting human who let a child rapist free. Then people clued you into the facts of the case, and you say 'well she helped him get off easily'. With further explanation of how our justice system works and what a defense lawyer's job is you come with "well.... guys.... it was distasteful... right...?'.
Did you know paraphrasing someone and adding a bunch of nervous ellipses and a doubtful question at the end is the #1 way to show yourself for the twat that you are?
Now go on your merry way, defend someone who you are convinced raped a 12 year old girl against a prosecution you consider incompetent, then laugh about it, you vacuous ruin.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 06 2016 06:22 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:05 Kickstart wrote:On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling 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. 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. You've walked your initial statement way back. First Hillary was a disgusting human who let a child rapist free. Then people clued you into the facts of the case, and you say 'well she helped him get off easily'. With further explanation of how our justice system works and what a defense lawyer's job is you come with "well.... guys.... it was distasteful... right...?'. Did you know paraphrasing someone and adding a bunch of nervous ellipses and a doubtful question at the end is the #1 way to show yourself for the twat that you are? Now go on your merry way, defend someone who you are convinced raped a 12 year old girl against a prosecution you consider incompetent, then laugh about it, you vacuous ruin.
Someone just found the moral high ground his climbed up on is just a pile of shit.
|
Sounds like we need more Breitbart in here.
|
On October 06 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:03 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote: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.” Just curious, has she ever talked to the victim of her work? I'm fine with it not comporting to my idea, but has she said anything to indicate she comprehends what that meant for that girl? What her opinion on herself would have been had it been Chelsea instead of a stranger? For me it's about not fully appreciating the negative consequences of some of her actions. Superpredators, NAFTA, etc... There's a pattern of her seeming incapable of expressing anything that resembles real empathy for the victims of her accomplishments.
I'm not sure why you would expect defence attorneys to approach the accusants in their cases?
Yeah, nothing spells empathy like the lawyer who fought against your case in court coming up to you afterwards for a chat.
|
On October 06 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:03 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote: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.” Just curious, has she ever talked to the victim of her work? I'm fine with it not comporting to my idea, but has she said anything to indicate she comprehends what that meant for that girl? What her opinion on herself would have been had it been Chelsea instead of a stranger? For me it's about not fully appreciating the negative consequences of some of her actions. Superpredators, NAFTA, etc... There's a pattern of her seeming incapable of expressing anything that resembles real empathy for the victims of her accomplishments.
I don't know, and to be frank, publicly observable acts of empathy are not very high on my hierarchical list of traits I look for in a politician. That said, my intuition tells me that Clinton does indeed have an empathetic side, only it's been buried rather deep.
|
On October 06 2016 06:18 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:00 zlefin wrote: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. Yes, certainly so. One of two possible candidates for future US president & commander-in-chief is an "irrelevant nobody". Also, Hillary manically laughing at videos of people getting lynched and wondering if they should just "drone that guy", while simultaneously having her hands elbow deep in several global massacres, makes it totally unlikely she is personally involved in a single civilian death. Talk about cognitive dissonance lol. Most people are "dumb" but you are lucky to be with the smart crowd I see. Good job on being part of the club!
you said "dolan" i don't know who dolan is; and it's far enough away that it's not an obvious typo, so that's on you. that's your screwup, own it and accept it.
you sound like your gettign stuff from conspiracy sites and believing it.
as to intellect, i've got all the proof I need, so thanks.
cognitive dissonance is so overused by people who don't understand it well; ah well, the poor fate of terms to be misused.
|
Norway28917 Posts
On October 06 2016 02:07 Acrofales wrote:Way to twist words. I don't think anybody was claiming Trump hasn't had a single rally with over 20k attendants. It's just that when there are 20k attendants, he probably claims there are 50k+ 
I've actually noticed this as a fairly consistent pattern. He multiplies positive numbers by 2.5.
(obviously, his rallies are still bigger than hillary's, and obviously there are also lies from the left side. equally obviously, 'who lies more in this campaign' is not fucking close. Trump has the most contentious relationship with the truth out of any presidential candidate with a chance of winning, ever. )
|
Canada11607 Posts
On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling 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. 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.
The quote I was responding to from you had nothing to do with laughing whether in good taste or not.
You 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.
That was your point of complaint- she was less moral than Trump for representing her client fully. The comparison was business loopholes vs lawyers. There was nothing in there about her being less moral for laughing.
...also. Maybe she's fighting the good fight against the PC moral crusaders with her distasteful laughing
|
|
|
On October 06 2016 06:17 farvacola wrote:I enjoy seeing internet Trump fans question the hormone profiles of men who support Hillary. I only wish that they'd ask the same questions in person
Sounds like it's almost as fun as seeing Hilary fans use misogyny to explain why people don't like her.
|
On October 06 2016 07:24 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:17 farvacola wrote:I enjoy seeing internet Trump fans question the hormone profiles of men who support Hillary. I only wish that they'd ask the same questions in person Sounds like it's almost as fun as seeing Hilary fans use misogyny to explain why people don't like her.
Have you seen that happen in person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
