|
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. |
Particularly interesting if you look at Black turnout compared to pre-Obama Black turnout. Also interesting taken with the recent gallup poll on turnout expectations
Anyone taken a deep look at the electorate estimates on these recent polls? I think there's a strong possibility that we have the biggest turnout for whites in at least the last 12 years (by gross and capita) and the lowest black turnout in at least the last 12 years.
|
On October 06 2016 07:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:24 Amarok wrote: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?
I'm Australian, so no. But replace Hillary with Julia Gillard and the answer is yes.
But I'm a dude with a tiny brain so what do I know?
|
On October 06 2016 07:29 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:26 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:24 Amarok wrote: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? I'm Australian, so no. But replace Hillary with Julia Gillard and the answer is yes. But I'm a dude with a tiny brain so what do I know?
Thanks, this post is quite revealing vis a vie anti-Hillary Aussies.
|
On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. The quote I was responding to from you had nothing to do with laughing whether in good taste or not. You wrote: Show nested quote +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
Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed?
I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump.
|
On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump.
Hillary was appointed as counsel and was denied her motion for substitution.
|
On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump.
You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right?
|
On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right?
You didn't read his post did you?
|
On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right?
This is the 41231241 time it has been pointed out in the last 5 pages (excuse the hyperbole). If he didnt get it yet, hes not going to. Hes found his mountain of bullshit morality to die on. Let him be.
|
On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you?
I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story.
|
On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story.
The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him.
|
On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him.
What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you?
|
On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you?
I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post...
Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed?
Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing.
|
United States44177 Posts
On October 06 2016 07:43 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling wrote:On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling wrote:
[quote]
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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you? I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post... Show nested quote +Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing.
You can't not take the case. Clinton tried.
|
On October 06 2016 07:43 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling wrote:On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling wrote:
[quote]
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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you? I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post... Show nested quote +Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing.
Do you understand what a judicial appointment of counsel is?
|
On October 06 2016 07:43 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling wrote:On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 05:25 Falling wrote:
[quote]
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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you? I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post... Show nested quote +Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing.
In the part you bolded he implies it's a matter choice, it wasn't.
|
On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling 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. 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him.
If that is the hill he wants to die on, he is still deeply uninformed. The phone call was recorded without her permission and she was discussing an old case with a co worker. As someone who works at a law firm, I understand exactly what happened there and most Americans do as well. Recording peoples private discussion about a sensitive issue and then releasing it years later with little context is a poor way to change minds. Most people just think if they would want them done to them and what terrible things they have laughed at.
And he is also really stupid when it comes to the US justice system, despite our efforts to educate him.
Edit: Ok, clearly people are not aware that judges in the US can force attorneys to take criminal cases if the person cannot afford counsel. If you work for a legal aid(free attorneys) firm, you are on the judges short list if they need an attorney.
|
On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:
What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed?
If you haven't found yourself accidentally laughing over something that's actually very depressing/mortifying, then I can only say that you are blessed to not be in a line of work that has to deal with that kind of shit on a daily basis.
Physicians, for example, have to check themselves on inappropriate humor in their profession. When it comes out, it's not due to immaturity or lack of empathy/humanity. It's because humor is a very normal coping mechanism for depressing or high-stress situations. Obviously, we'd all love it if our doctors didn't engage in dark humor when the death of a patient is involved and doing it openly in front of other patients or their loved ones is a big no-no, but I also have pretty realistic expectations for a normal human's ability to handle stress without a coping mechanism. Given the nature of the work, I'm really not surprised that public defenders go through the same experience.
|
On October 06 2016 07:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:43 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling wrote:On October 06 2016 06:03 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you? I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post... Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing. You can't not take the case. Clinton tried.
Well you can. It'll probably cost you your job but you always have the choice. Personally my choice would be to never become a lawyer.
But that's not my point. My point is that characterising bardtown's post as being about the fact that she took the case is incorrect if I'm being generous. He's saying laughing about it shows her to be of low character.
|
On October 06 2016 07:47 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2016 07:43 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling wrote:[quote] The quote I was responding to from you had nothing to do with laughing whether in good taste or not. You wrote: [quote] 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you? I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post... Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing. You can't not take the case. Clinton tried. Well you can. It'll probably cost you your job but you always have the choice. Personally my choice would be to never become a lawyer. But that's not my point. My point is that characterising bardtown's post as being about the fact that she took the case is incorrect if I'm being generous. He's saying laughing about it shows her to be of low character.
The judge could find you in contempt of court and send you to prison for not complying the court's order. It would be career suicide and a violation of the oath the attorney swore when they were given their bar license.
Edit: Yango also raises a really good point about why people laugh and joke when faced with horrific things.
|
On October 06 2016 07:47 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2016 07:43 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:On October 06 2016 07:39 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 07:34 Amarok wrote:On October 06 2016 07:33 Nevuk wrote:On October 06 2016 07:31 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 06:56 Falling wrote:[quote] The quote I was responding to from you had nothing to do with laughing whether in good taste or not. You wrote: [quote] 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 Got it, so my crime here is elaborating on my position in a second post. Forget about Hillary; put yourself in that situation. As far as you're concerned, this man raped this girl. The prosecution are incompetent and you are not. Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? I'm trying to understand why I need to try to explain this. There's a huge child abuse inquiry going on in the UK right now and just the thought of somebody involved in the case joking about any aspect of it makes me feel ill. It would be career/social suicide. But not for Hillary. Why? Because she's up against Trump. You know she tried to get out of taking the case, right? You didn't read his post did you? I read it post and he is still fucking wrong. She was ASSIGNED THE CASE BY THE JUDGE WHO REFUSED TO REMOVE HER ON REQUEST. That is it. End of story. The quoted post is talking about how she laughed about it, not that she took the case. You don't have to agree with him to not mischaracterize him. What does "Do you take the case?" mean to you? I mean sure if you want to take one line out of the context of the entire post... Do you take the case? Personally, I wouldn't, but I can understand the argument for doing so and I don't know the extent to which she protested the situation, etc. Fast forward a while. You're now reminiscing about the time a man you were convinced raped a 12 year old girl got off with 2 months (essentially nothing considering the crime). What, I wonder, is going through your head? Is it amusing to you, or does it make you angry/depressed? Note the bolded directly after the line you're referencing. You can't not take the case. Clinton tried. Well you can. It'll probably cost you your job but you always have the choice. Personally my choice would be to never become a lawyer. But that's not my point. My point is that characterising bardtown's post as being about the fact that she took the case is incorrect if I'm being generous. He's saying laughing about it shows her to be of low character.
Actually, it costs you contempt, which can lead to fines and/or imprisonment. And yes, it's abundantly clear that you've chosen not to become a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
