U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[DraculaAD1972]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is...uh...not actually a proven case at all. And most of it is basically completely made up. 

• She didn't volunteer. She was appointed by the judge. Reluctantly. 
• She didn't successfully defend the rapist. They got a plea bargain. A plea bargain that was pushed for by the victim's mother. 
• She is not on record of knowing he was guilty.
• She did not claim that the girl made up the story. 
• She said nothing about the girl's character in court.
• She laughed about the lie detector - that's true - because it forever tarnished her view of lie detectors. 

So yeah, let's consider that case. 

 

1. I never said she volunteered.

2. I stand corrected but I think he got off lightly thanks to Hillary. 

3. She is on record saying this, the lie detector comments show this.

4. I never said she did. I said she made up stuff about her character. 

5. She cast aspersions as to the girls character, she told the judge the girl had a fantasy obsession with older men. 

6. Yes she laughed because she was personally convinced he was guilty.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

1. I never said she volunteered.

The meme does, but okay. Probably because you didn't remember it. 

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

2. I stand corrected but I think he got off lightly thanks to Hillary. 

Per the article, likely not; the plea deal was requested by the prosecutor at the request of the mother. 

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

3. She is on record saying this, the lie detector comments show this.

No, it isn't. I challenge you to find that. Again, the thing I linked has affidavits and a much better recollection of it than what you have.

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

4. I never said she did. I said she made up stuff about her character. 

She didn't do that, either. What she did say was that other experts said she may have some issues, and recommended a psych eval. 

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

5. She cast aspersions as to the girls character, she told the judge the girl had a fantasy obsession with older men. 

No, she did not. From snopes and the affidavit: 

Quote

That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information:

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

6. Yes she laughed because she was personally convinced he was guilty.

She said she laughed because she was so incredibly disheartened by the lie detector's veracity. But really, what does it matter? She defended a person who was almost certainly guilty and the end result was him pleading guilty. 

So here's the actual facts:

• Clinton worked as a legal representative of poor clients
• She took the case reluctantly and asked to be off it but was refused. 
• She worked hard on the case in the hopes that they could establish a legal clinic
• She did not cast aspersions or say anything negative in court or otherwise about the victim's character, nor is there any record of her saying anything negative about that person, ever.
• She did not get her client off of the charge
• She did not propose the plea bargain and instead accepted it when the victim and her mother requested it. 

And to you, this is a fucking moral failing? Fuck that noise.

[Kalbear]

Also, Chuck Tingle's twitter feed about the debate was one of the most amazing things in this election.

 

[OldGimletEye]

35 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

4. I never said she did. I said she made up stuff about her character. 

Not exactly correct. She put in an affidavit that she had been "informed" about certain things about the girls character or habits. She didn't say whether she knew or did not know from personal experience or knowledge. She wasn't exactly required to have personal knowledge. It was sufficient she had some basis to believe that what she had been told was true. It was her duty to investigate the case. The statements you are referring to were put in an affidavit in support of a motion for a psychological examination of the state's witness.

35 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

5. She cast aspersions as to the girls character, she told the judge the girl had a fantasy obsession with older men. 

Again, not exactly true. In the affidavit she filed with the court, she stated she had been told a few things by a child psychologist about certain behaviors that were common in persons who were of an age and background similar to the state's witness. And,again, this statement was put in a signed affidavit in support of a motion for psychological evaluation of the victim (all this before the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge).

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Isn't that point of criminal defense lawyers? That they have to do unsavory things because in aggregate it preserves the integrity of the process?

Somebody has to defend guilty scumbags, after all. Otherwise, what's the point of due process?

[MerenthaClone]

21 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

1. I never said she volunteered.

2. I stand corrected but I think he got off lightly thanks to Hillary. 

3. She is on record saying this, the lie detector comments show this.

4. I never said she did. I said she made up stuff about her character. 

5. She cast aspersions as to the girls character, she told the judge the girl had a fantasy obsession with older men. 

6. Yes she laughed because she was personally convinced he was guilty.

The justice system is entirely founded on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty.  The prosecution must prove otherwise.  The entire system relies on this fact, and relies on the defense doing its utmost to defend the accused.  It requires a defense attorney to defend guilty people, sometimes even knowing that they're guilty.  Public defenders especially are upholding one of the functioning pillars of our society, sometimes at pretty significant cost to themselves, and for people to decide that this somehow makes them morally unworthy for anything is shameful.  

Isn't that point of criminal defense lawyers? That they have to do unsavory things because in aggregate it preserves the integrity of the process?

Yes.  Exactly.  And they should be praised for it, not condemned by people who are too shortsighted to see beyond "but but but a good thing happened to a bad person!!"

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I swear his campaign must be staffed by monkeys...

 

 

Isn't that illegal.  I mean the first time it happened, I wrote it off as ineptitude, the second time as brashness, this time he deserves to get dinged by the law.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Isn't that point of criminal defense lawyers? That they have to do unsavory things because in aggregate it preserves the integrity of the process?

I don’t remember, it may have been Alan Dershowitz who did, that jokingly came up with the two rules of criminal defense practice. They are:

1. All criminal defendants are guilty.

2. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys know about rule number 1 and believe it's true.

Clinton laughing about the results of the polygraph test is probably pretty typical of criminal defense lawyers who are prone to be a bit cynical about their clients.

But, yes, under United States practice a criminal lawyer is expected to go to great lengths to defend their clients, even if they suspect that their clients are probably guilty. The justification being that is necessary so we don't send innocent people to jail and it prevents the state from becoming tyrannical with its criminal enforcement powers.

[all swedes are racist]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, Chuck Tingle's twitter feed about the debate was one of the most amazing things in this election.

 

I'm assuming you've seen the whole website? Grade A gold certified genius

trumpdebatefacts.com

[MerenthaClone]

2 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

The clarifications are appreciated. But as for moral failing, yes I think it reflects a cynical attitude on Hillary Clintons behalf. The victim herself has said that Clinton's laughter was not something she appreciated, was this another false meme?  The victim is on record saying she feels Hillary lied. 

All I see in this post is "I have a child's view of how the world works and don't understand adversarial systems."  

[Altherion]

21 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Clinton's popularity has historically gone up rapidly once she's in office compared to when she's trying to run for a promotion, for ~~~some reason~~~.  She won't lose in 2020 barring some truly calamitous events that were probably beyond her control anyhow.    

It's not all about Clinton. No single party has held the presidency for more than 12 years straight since FDR-Truman more than 60 years ago. Furthermore, we have not had a recession in a long time and for us not to have one by 2020 we would need to set a new record of time without a recession. Also, I think you underestimate the difference in spotlight and criticism between the Presidency and Clinton's previous roles.

Quote

And yeah, choosing not to make a choice that will (to the best of your knowledge) result in evil is literally condoning evil.  The trolley problem (assuming accurate knowledge) essentially identifies selfish people who decided that maintaining their ideal of moral purity is somehow more important than others' literal lives. But that's been your deal for awhile now.

Alternatively, it identifies people who would rather actively commit murder than mind their own business. If there was an obviously correct answer to the problem, nobody would talk about.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

The clarifications are appreciated. But as for moral failing, yes I think it reflects a cynical attitude on Hillary Clintons behalf. The victim herself has said that Clinton's laughter was not something she appreciated, was this another false meme?  The victim is on record saying she feels Hillary lied. 

Yes, both of those things are true. She is angry at Clinton, and does think that Clinton lied (though I'm not sure about what, precisely). That is certainly her view, and I'm very sympathetic towards it. It does not, however, indicate a moral failing. 

Here's the problem I have with your viewpoint: what was Clinton to do otherwise? If she refuses to represent this rapist, her clinic idea is gone and the notion of representing the poor is out the window. Or worse, she gets put in contempt and someone else represents him anyway. If she fails to do a good job in representation, the judge and the whole system looks at her as either incompetent or in contempt. And if she attempts to aid the complainant in any way after she is the representative of the defendant she is unable to practice law in any capacity for the rest of her life. 

 

 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Alternatively, it identifies people who would rather actively commit murder than mind their own business. If there was an obviously correct answer to the problem, nobody would talk about.

Minding their own business is an interesting way of putting it when you literally are given the power to make a choice and you squander it. But yes, completely hiding your head in the sand and ignoring anyone else's problems is certainly something to do, and the problem definitely identifies those people better than many others. 

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

The clarifications are appreciated. But as for moral failing, yes I think it reflects a cynical attitude on Hillary Clintons behalf. The victim herself has said that Clinton's laughter was not something she appreciated, was this another false meme?  The victim is on record saying she feels Hillary lied. 

I can understand the victim being annoyed. 

But the fact of the matter is that Clinton did what she was supposed to do as a criminal lawyer. Again, even if Clinton believed that her client was guilty, her actions were appropriate. Failing to sufficiently investigate a client's case is malpractice. When a criminal defense lawyer does get found liable or guilty of committing malpractice, a typical reason is failing to sufficiently investigate a client's case.

Clinton probably thought the polygraph test was bs and that's why she laughed about it. Even so, that in no way implies she did anything unethical in the way she handled that case. As I mentioned, a lot of criminal defense attorneys get pretty damn cynical about their clients.

And if I recall correctly, Clinton didn't really want anything to do with the case to begin with. She was appointed by the court and couldn't really get out of it.

[alguien]

Dan Savage had an interesting take should Donald have the gall to bring up Bill Clinton's affairs during the presidential debate:

Unsolicited Advice for Hillary Clinton

From the article: 

Quote

 

...

The fact that there have been challenges in my marriage, Donald, isn't news to anyone. My husband has not always been faithful. That's true. It's also not relevant to the question before the American people, and that question is this: which one of us—you or me—should be the next president of the United States.

My husband is not running for president. I am.

But if you want to talk about affairs, Donald, let's talk about affairs. Yes, my husband has not always been faithful; again, that isn't news. It should go without saying that his actions have, at times, caused a great deal of pain for me, for our daughter, and for all involved. It should go without saying but here I am saying it, Donald, because you want to talk about affairs. So let's talk about them. But first I want to say this: I love my husband. He is not perfect. My husband loves me. I am not perfect. We managed to work through the pain and save our marriage, like so many other couples who've faced similar challenges, and I'm glad we're still together.

Now let's talk about affairs.

You've had a few yourself, Donald. That's not news to anyone either. You've bragged about the affairs you've had. You divorced your first wife and married one of the women you cheated on her with. For your third wife's sake, Donald, I hope your cheating days are behind you. Because I know how painful being cheated on is and I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone. It really hurts. Call your first wife, Donald, and ask her how it felt

...

 

There's more, but I think it'd work pretty well. If Donald is stupid enough to go down the road of marital infidelity with her, she'll have a lot more ammo in that showdown. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Practically all politicians lie (Clinton certainly does too). The difference is that Trump's lies are more obvious as well as more amusing.

So Trump is marginally preferable than Clinton in a gun to the head vote or else scenario because Clinton is better at concealing lies and Trump is more amusing. Arguably, if a president is going to lie for the national interest then it's better to have someone who can conceal the lie (i.e make it seem more like truth), which is actually a point in Clinton's favour. And also arguably, you don't want a US president who represents the comic relief for government. So also a point in Clinton's favour, I would think.

[Larry of the Lawn]

21 minutes ago, Rhllor's void lobster said:

I'm assuming you've seen the whole website? Grade A gold certified genius

trumpdebatefacts.com

The woman or man behind CT should be Time's person of the year.  I don't think I've ever been more envious of an online personality.  CT is sheer genius, is the template for the figure for my art.  I can only hope that my eventual Magnum PI opus can rub shoulders to knees with Mr. TINGLE (nothing weird tho).

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

#1,#2 and #3 don't mention the specific accusations that Hillary harassed Bill's victims. You talk about #1 her staying with him despite the affairs,#2 her being tarred with the same brush, and #3 her being a wife and therefore subsidiary to her husband.  #2 implies she is accused of being guilty by mere association rather than an active participant in these alleged crimes. The accusations are that she is a rape enabler and very much a guilty participant (by threatening the victims supposedly). But i get that these are unproven rumours. So let's consider the proven case of Hillary Clinton when she successfully defended a rapist who left a 12 year old girl unconscious from a brutal assault.  Hillary is on record admitting she knew he was guilty and I believe she made up stuff about the girl's character in court to get the rapist out of prison. She was recorded laughing about how the rapist passed a lie detector. I have no problem with her being an effective defender, but to claim she is morally fit to be president is hardly credible.

So basically you're saying competent defence attorneys should be automatically disqualified from running for president because they got guilty people off, even though, in this case she didn't actually get the guy off.

A lawyer who is appointed to defend an alleged criminal, who knows or believes the person is guilty, is still ethically required to achieve the best possible outcome for the person they are representing. If the defence attorney does not do the best job they can, then the convicted criminal may have a potential case for appeal on grounds of inadequate representation. And if successful that would be a professional black mark for Hillary, and further trauma to the victim. A plea bargain that minimises the prison sentence for the guilty criminal at the same time as saving all sorts of cost and grief of a court trial seems like a good outcome.

[MerenthaClone]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I can understand the victim being annoyed. 

So, back in the day, I showed up on-scene to an accident where a drunk driver had head-on'd into another car. First EMS unit on-scene, others en route.  The drunk driver was obviously the more injured based on initial triage.  My partner intubated him while I went to stabiliize the other injury.  Other units arrived, took over care of the first, and we booked it the fuck out of there with the drunk driver in the back.  Should the family of the other driver be mad that the drunk who caused the accident got treated first?  Probably.  Would I be, were I their family?  Of course.  Did we make the right medical, ethical decision?  You bet your ass.  People are allowed to be upset by the outcomes of some systems.  I'd be pissed as fuck were I the victim, too.  But the accused deserves competent, legal representation regardless of how the victim, or anyone else, feels.  And the people who defend them should be praised, not condemned.  Simple as that.  

[DanteGabriel]

Anyone else wonder why Trump keeps bringing up Rosie O'Donnell in debates? He's been stewing a grudge against her for a decade because she called him out on all his bullshit ten years ago:
 

Quote

To put O’Donnell’s points in context: Trump had just held a press conference to announce that he would not be stripping Miss USA Tara Conner of her title after she was caught using drugs and drinking while underage. “I’ve always been a believer in second chances,” Trump said.

O’Donnell was less than amused by Trump’s show of benevolent mercy. “There he is, hair looping,” she said, pushing her hair over her head to indicate the signature Trump-over as the audience applauded gleefully. “He’s the moral authority? Left the first wife, had an affair, left the second wife, had an affair, had kids both times, but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America. Donald, sit and spin, my friend!”

O’Donnell’s co-hosts tried to come to Trump’s defense, noting, “Say what you want to say about him, but he’s a businessman.”

But O’Donnell was having none of it: “He’s been bankrupt so many times!” she cried. “The people that he owed money to got shorted out, but he got to try again and again.” She also pointed out that Trump has made a great deal of use of both the money his father lent him and the money he inherited after his father’s death. “This is not a self-made man,” she said.

So let’s review: She mocked his hair. She made fun of his attempts at gravitas. She said that he was a bad businessman, that he had gone bankrupt, and that he was not self-made.

All O’Donnell had to do, really, was call Trump a short-fingered vulgarian and she would have hit every square on the “how to piss off Donald Trump” bingo card.

http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/9/27/13072666/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud-debate-explained

I've never been particularly a fan of Rosie O'Donnell but she was a decade ahead of almost everyone else. This is the ur-text of Trump takedowns.