US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5553

On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?

On October 14 2016 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:
That still assumes the other attorney isn't an idiot who fails to point out that rape has little to nothing to do with attractiveness and more to do with power. I mean yeah you can take that shot but that's certainly not the odds on play.

On October 14 2016 05:03 xDaunt wrote:

Good luck getting the average juror to accept the intellectual argument.

On October 14 2016 05:03 xDaunt wrote:

Good luck getting the average juror to accept the intellectual argument.

On October 14 2016 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Although what he said was disgusting and deplorable--that wasn't actually what XDaunt was saying.

The evidence had is that Trump having a recording of him saying he goes after pretty women. Trumps defense is that accuser is not pretty, hence does not fit the description of the evidence.

Still shitty, but its a different thing than what you're framing.

On October 14 2016 05:08 OuchyDathurts wrote:


You also assume you have to make that argument and they didn't come into jury duty already understanding that its a power dynamic thing. That one of those 12 jurors doesn't believe that to start with seems an unbelievable long shot. That one of those 12 can't be convinced of that argument an even longer shot. Yeah you can do it but man that's some playing with fire.

On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?

On October 14 2016 05:10 zlefin wrote:

I think you're counting the wrong way; you only need to get one juror to vote not guilty, as long as one person buys the argument you're in decent shape as a defender.

On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:


Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:



And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.

On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:


Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:

+ Show Spoiler +

And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.

On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:


Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:



And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.

On October 14 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:

It is also a narrative that doesn’t help Trump, since even if he proves that isn’t attracted to the woman, he won’t help his case against the Times. At all. That doesn’t prove the story isn’t’ news worthy or that the knowingly published an inaccurate story to defame Trump.

On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:


Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:

And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.

On October 14 2016 05:23 brian wrote:

I feel like your example is a counterpoint to your argument.

On October 14 2016 05:32 GoTuNk! wrote:


I tought it was hilarous that Arnold withdrew support from Trump after some audio tape given he did his nanny while married.

On October 14 2016 05:32 GoTuNk! wrote:


I tought it was hilarous that Arnold withdrew support from Trump after some audio tape given he did his nanny while married.

On October 14 2016 05:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I do not disagree with you.

I don't think its a line of argument that should be made--and its a bad argument regardless. Just wanted to make sure that we aren't attacking a stance XDaunt wasn't actually making.

On October 14 2016 04:54 xDaunt wrote:
For all of you junior attorneys out there who clearly have no idea how any of this works, let me explain how trial lawyering works: you pick the best narrative that you can that accomplishes what you seek to accomplish at trial while also best fitting the available facts. If I'm representing a defendant in a sexual assault case where there's some ambiguity over whether the sexual assault occurred (let's face it, these are the only cases that would go to trial anyway unless we're talking about consent issues), where the plaintiff is ugly, and where the defendant can show a rich history of dating/fucking/whatevering hot women, then I am very strongly going to consider promoting the narrative that the defendant didn't sexually assault the because the plaintiff is out of the defendant's league. If I have some evidence suggesting that the plaintiff has credibility problems or greed problems, then I most certainly will promote that narrative.

Y'all's problem is that you can't fathom the scenario where there's some gray area regarding what happened.