Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Merkava]

You're still rooting all this in some utterly misbegotten presumption that providing someone a legal defense necessarily means you encourage and support whatever crime they were accused of. Which is wildly incorrect, and deliberately biased. Everyone is entitled to a legal defense. Lawyers providing that service are not supporting their client's behaviour. That isn't what the legal system is about.

That's bullshit. I never hinted at anything even approaching that. Once she agrees to defend him, Hillary is under a legal an ethical imperative to provide the absolute best defense possible. I think that's a good thing. It's also a good thing you're not under the same imperative to actually read the thread.

Seriously, that's kind of underhanded. Read my posts, Endus. Thanks.

keep trying to make that argument, and it's hugely dishonest.

Fuck off Endus. I never made that argument. Read my fucking posts.

[Wells]

That's bullshit. I never hinted at anything even approaching. Once she agrees do defend him, Hillary is under a legal an ethical imperative to provide the absolute best defense possible. It's a good thing you're not under the same imperative to actually read the thread.

Seriously, that's kind of underhanded. Read my posts, Endus. Thanks.

So why are you litigating the issue so heavily?

[Merkava]

So why are you litigating the issue so heavily?

DeadManWalking said that she was a public defender and would have been disbarred if she chose not to defend the accused rapist. I'm pointing out that neither of those two assertions are correct. And as usual, people are attempting to squeeze in strawman arguments, like Endus above.

Post #8770 was my initial reply. That's all I'm saying.

Hillary Clinton was not a public defender. She ran a legal aid clinic in Arkansas. The case was originally assigned to a publc defender. The circumstances under which Clinton was assigned the case are disputed.

[Endus]

That's bullshit. I never hinted at anything even approaching that. Once she agrees to defend him, Hillary is under a legal an ethical imperative to provide the absolute best defense possible. I think that's a good thing. It's also a good thing you're not under the same imperative to actually read the thread.

Seriously, that's kind of underhanded. Read my posts, Endus. Thanks.

So why are you bringing it up?

Was your entire point here that Clinton is an ethical and professional lawyer, who executed her duties appropriately?

[Wells]

DeadManWalking said that she was a public defender and would have been disbarred if she chose not to defend the accused rapist. I'm pointing out that neither of those two assertions are correct. And as usual, people are attempting to squeeze in strawman arguments, like Endus above.

Post #8770 was my initial reply. That's all I'm saying.

So despite thinking the entire story is a bunch of nothing you've spent all these pages arguing it because someone was technically incorrect about one of the details?

[Cthulhu 2020]

So despite thinking the entire story is a bunch of nothing you've spent all these pages arguing it because someone was technically incorrect about one of the details?

*snippy snip*

Infracted - minor spam

[DeadmanWalking]

And then she changed her mind as things developed. Its been known to happen among humans.

And that would make Trump the equivalent of between 4 and 60 humans, judging by his inability to adhere to his own policies none the less the Republican policies, of which I can understand Nit adhering to Republican policies since he is a Democrat and has never learned what republican policies are even though he has had a year of running for office to figure them out.

[Wells]

And that would make Trump the equivalent of between 4 and 60 humans, judging by his inability to adhere to his own policies none the less the Republican policies, of which I can understand Nit adhering to Republican policies since he is a Democrat and has never learned what republican policies are even though he has had a year of running for office to figure them out.

I mean there's changing your opinion on something in the face of constant campaigning against it from your base.

Then there's changing your opinion back and forth day to day depending on what your current whims dictate.

[Merkava]

So despite thinking the entire story is a bunch of nothing you've spent all these pages arguing it because someone was technically incorrect about one of the details?

I havent spent pages. I posted like 4 times.

And it's not "technically incorrect," it's a matter of fact. Either someone worked for the Public Defender's office or they didn't. Either she would have been in danger of being disbarred or she wouldn't have.
Here's what DeadManWalking accused another poster of..

I know that this story sounds really good if you hate Hillary but you should google shit before you run around spreading ignorance. That is the problem with people like you, you see made up shit on the Internet and you immediately acknowledge it as a fact without researching it and all you end up doing it dumbing down society and bringing your entire agenda into question due to how little you care about facts.

Next time you see something like this try and do a simple google search before you grab your megaphone and start spreading lies that were created in a shit post focused political party think tank.

Well, he's guilty of the same exact fucking thing. The statements made were false. That's all.

[Wells]

Fuckin' weird man.

[Merkava]

So why are you bringing it up?

Was your entire point here that Clinton is an ethical and professional lawyer, who executed her duties appropriately?

You think you can accuse me of the things you accuse me of, ignore my posts, and then ask me that idiotic question? My fucking point was that DeadManWalking doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, even though he vehemently accuses others of not knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Which is why my original post in this matter was directed at him.

But evidently it's just easier to jump to assumptions that it is to read or ask.

- - - Updated - - -

Fuckin' weird man.

You do the same exact thing. You take issue with something that somebody says, someone else jumps in, misinterprets your position, and starts arguing something that you never said. It happens all the time.

[Wells]

You do the same exact thing.

Argue at length with people I agree with on the details of that agreement? Nah.

[Merkava]

Argue at length with people I agree with on the details of that agreement? Nah.

No. Express exasperation at the fact that people don't take the time to read another poster's position before jumping in and trying to get them to defend things they never said.

[Lenonis]

Argue at length with people I agree with on the details of that agreement? Nah.

Welcome to my world a few days ago. Just let it go -- Merkava likes being right even when it is irrelevant to the core discussion.

Never understood the whole "how dare she do her job well" line of attack...or why people have to go four decades back...wait, I'm sorry, 41 years to be precise or I'll get told I'm wrong it wasn't four decades ago...to find something to attack her on.

The discussion about her stance on TPP is a much better line of attack IMO -- although I really wonder how many people who throw TPP at her actually even care or know much about it.

[Merkava]

snip

I'll respond to any questions you have about my position. Hell, at this point I'd welcome it. You don't have to try to hit me with meme posts. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Welcome to my world a few days ago. Just let it go -- Merkava likes being right even when it is irrelevant to the core discussion.

Never understood the whole "how dare she do her job well" line of attack...or why people have to go four decades back...wait, I'm sorry, 41 years to be precise or I'll get told I'm wrong it wasn't four decades ago...to find something to attack her on.

The discussion about her stance on TPP is a much better line of attack IMO -- although I really wonder how many people who throw TPP at her actually even care or know much about it.

That's not my line of attack. Not at all. I was just correcting DeadManWalking since he was so rude about correcting someone else. That's all.

And there is no "core discussion." Since we're in the Trump mega thread, I would say all this talk about hillary is irrelvant to whatever you would consider the "core discussion."

Seriously, all this would have been avoided if people like Endus would have just read my last 3 posts before he jumped on me. I mean if you don't think I'm worth replying to, then don't reply. That's fine.

[Lenonis]

That's not my line of attack. Not at all. I was just correcting DeadManWalking since he was so rude about correcting someone else. That's all.

Sorry, that was two separate thoughts actually. I noticed you chimed in to just correct the record about her being a public defender -- which is really just irrelevant as once she was either assigned or took the case she was legally and ethically obligated to defend him to the best of her ability -- a stance I believe you also hold.

I was saying, in general, I don't understand how bringing up stuff that old and really just shows she was a very good lawyer is something that people are doing. Doesn't make sense to me.

[DeadmanWalking]

DeadManWalking said that she was a public defender and would have been disbarred if she chose not to defend the accused rapist. I'm pointing out that neither of those two assertions are correct. And as usual, people are attempting to squeeze in strawman arguments, like Endus above.

Post #8770 was my initial reply. That's all I'm saying.

He was given a public attorney but the defendant demanded a female attorney to defend him, as he felt that the jury would be less hostile to him with a female defending him. The judge agreed it would make a fair trial and scanned a list of female attorneys, at that time there were very few and assigned Hillary. The Prosecutor called her and told her she was to defend the guy and she said she didn't want to do it. The prosecutor told her to call the judge and she did, and he didn't let her off. At that point she did her job. She didn't chose to take the case.
So if you want to say that she begrudgingly took part in giving a guy a fair trial which is the right of any citizen regardless of guilt then fine. If you are getting your balls in a twist over the word "public attorney" that doesn't change what happened and only exposes that you are Merkava, who always gets their balls in a twist over words that are used because your arguments fail consistently in the face of facts and history. Twist on homie.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, that was two separate thoughts actually. I noticed you chimed in to just correct the record about her being a public defender -- which is really just irrelevant as once she was either assigned or took the case she was legally and ethically obligated to defend him to the best of her ability -- a stance I believe you also hold.

I was saying, in general, I don't understand how bringing up stuff that old and really just shows she was a very good lawyer is something that people are doing. Doesn't make sense to me.

Because the lie is really good at getting ignorant people to vote against Hillary.

[Merkava]

Sorry, that was two separate thoughts actually. I noticed you chimed in to just correct the record about her being a public defender -- which is really just irrelevant as once she was either assigned or took the case she was legally and ethically obligated to defend him to the best of her ability -- a stance I believe you also hold.

I was saying, in general, I don't understand how bringing up stuff that old and really just shows she was a very good lawyer is something that people are doing. Doesn't make sense to me.

The key difference is that I think she could have refused the case if she wanted to. She said in an interview that the Prosecutor asked her to do it as a favor to him.
And she was a law professor at the time, not a public defender. Given the fact that she didn't have any criminal trial experience, I think she could have refused. She certainly wouldn't have been disbarred, as DeadManWalking says, for refusing.

And I didn't bring it up. DeadManWalking brought it up. This is my reply to him

Hillary Clinton was not a public defender. She ran a legal aid clinic in Arkansas. The case was originally assigned to a publc defender. The circumstances under which Clinton was assigned the case are disputed.

People are jumping on me, like Endus, saying that I somehow believe that Clinton "condones," the behavior of the people that she defends. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I misrepresented another poster's position like that, either dishonestly or because I didn't read the thread, I guarantee you I would apologize for it.

Whether she was a PD or not is relevant to the discussion that Clinton had no say so in taking the case. I think Hillary wanted the case to make a name for herself. Nothing at all wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to a vigorous, competant defense. Here's what I said (since no one wants to go back and read)

Edit - Let's be absolutely clear. I'm not accusing Clinton of anything more unsavory than fudging the truth. If you want to believe DeadManWalking, then you have to believe that a judge compelled a law professor, someone with very little criminal experience, under threat of disbarment, to defend a rapist simply because he had refused a public defender on the grounds of "he demanded a female attorney." I think it's easier to believe that Hillary didn't refuse it because she wanted to make a name for herself in an area that she previously didn't have experience, and she was, admittedly fascinated by the case.

[FeedsOnDevTears]

I mean there's changing your opinion on something in the face of constant campaigning against it from your base.

Then there's changing your opinion back and forth day to day depending on what your current whims dictate.you think your audience wants to hear.

Trump's just a con artist who thinks big.

What's sad is that so many people fall for his BS.

[DeadmanWalking]

I'll respond to any questions you have about my position. Hell, at this point I'd welcome it. You don't have to try to hit me with meme posts. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not my line of attack. Not at all. I was just correcting DeadManWalking since he was so rude about correcting someone else. That's all.

And there is no "core discussion." Since we're in the Trump mega thread, I would say all this talk about hillary is irrelvant to whatever you would consider the "core discussion."

Seriously, all this would have been avoided if people like Endus would have just read my last 3 posts before he jumped on me. I mean if you don't think I'm worth replying to, then don't reply. That's fine.

Truthfully when I saw that story 6 months ago I fact checked it before I ran around like a rooster with my head cut off, and since then a few details like "public defender" slipped into the story from my mind because I don't read that snopes story every day. I still didn't see a story and just accept it as truth because it got my political opinion, instead I fact checked it then and there. The gist of the 6 month later rebelling may of had "public defender " added to it by mistake but it is a shit load more truthful that the guy I corrected.

You are the guy who gets his balls in a twist over Misapplied words because the core of your arguments fail repeatedly, it's your go to move. It's an make believe shield you employ consistently that the rest of us see though.