Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Merkava]

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 - - -



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

In reverse order, I wasn't the one who brought it up.

Now, you said she was a public defender. She was not. She was a law professor. You said she could be disbarred if she didn't accept the case. What evidence do you have for that? I'm not getting my balls in a twist, I just don't like people like you who rudely condemn other people for "making shit up on the internet," when they're guilty of the same exact thing.

This is what I said to you in my initial reply.

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.

The first three statements are correct. The first two directly contradict what you asserted. Where you got them, I don't know. And my last statement is true. Hillary has said in previous interview that she was asked to take the the case by the prosecutor "as a favor to him." And as a law professor, she was not under threat of disbarment.

Again, if you don't think your statements are important enough to defend, then don't make them in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

And yet...you still fucked it up. Surprise, surprise.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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.

*Summons the essence of Supertony* OMG mods gave me an infraction for posting a meme, mods clearly must be biased and hate me!

I'm usually able to post image responses, so long as I add a few somewhat meaningless words in. It just seems that posting an image without any of your own text is what's against the rules, so I'll just mental note to post a few meaningless words with image responses, since that's always worked in the past for me.

[Merkava]

*Summons the essence of Supertony* OMG mods gave me an infraction for posting a meme, mods clearly must be biased and hate me!

And somehow, trying to get other poster's to post seriously makes me the problem. OK.

[Biged781]

How well has flaming his supporters done for Hillary? That Basket of Deplorables? Did it help her polls or hurt them? Or did it just stroke your ego?

I'm no fan of Hillary either, but at least she's bad within the bounds of reason. Trump is on another planet. I don't understand how anyone with half a brain can buy into Trump's bullshit. It's difficult to have a real debate about Trump v Hillary because Trump doesn't present us with anything but hyperbole and one liners. He has no plan for anything. He won't go into detail about policy beyond saying 'oh yeah, I have a plan, trust me'. He's hateful, immature, unqualified, and divisive. He's no leader.

[Breccia]

And somehow, trying to get other poster's to post seriously makes me the problem. OK.

Well, you just spent five pages on the difference between
a) being a public defender, and
b) being a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for your legal clinic when a judge throws a really filthy rapist trial directly at you and you think, hmm, as a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for a legal clinic, would turning this down really help?

when you've admitted that essentially everything else in the story makes her look good. Except the part where you say she was making a name for herself -- you know, by defending a rapist guilty as sin, that makes someone look really spiffy -- an opinion that is contradicted by the two people that were actually there and disagree with you.

So yeah, you pretty much are the problem. You should probably switch topics.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand how anyone with half a brain can buy into Trump's bullshit.

They're rich, and like his tax plan. THey're willing to swallow the rest of his insanity to get it. That's evil, but not stupid.

[Biged781]

They're rich, and like his tax plan. THey're willing to swallow the rest of his insanity to get it. That's evil, but not stupid.

Yup, that's the other group I was referring to in my first post. Trump supporters are either stupid or selfish bastards. I usually try to keep an open mind and I lean more conservative on fiscal policy, but this guy is just an embarrassment.

[Merkava]

Well, you just spent five pages on the difference between
a) being a public defender, and
b) being a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for your legal clinic when a judge throws a really filthy rapist trial directly at you and you think, hmm, as a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for a legal clinic, would turning this down really help?

when you've admitted that essentially everything else in the story makes her look good. Except the part where you say she was making a name for herself -- you know, by defending a rapist guilty as sin, that makes someone look really spiffy -- an opinion that is contradicted by the two people that were actually there and disagree with you.

So yeah, you pretty much are the problem. You should probably switch topics.

.

5 pages was spent on it because people can't fucking read. That's not my problem.

1. Someone said Hillary was a public defender. She wasn't. She was a law professor. Those two things are different.
2. Someone said Hillary would have been disbarred for not taking the case. That's not true.
3. Someone said that Hillary was told by the judge that she had to take the case. That's disputed. Hillary said in an interview that she was asked to do it by the prosecutor as a favor for him.

I think she took the case because she wanted to take the case, for the most part. You seem to agree with that.

I don't think the laughing makes her look particularly good. I don't think disclosing publicly the results of her clients polygraph test make her look particularly good. And I think she fudged the truth a little on the circumstances under which she accepted the case. I think defending the guy does make her look good. I never said that it didn't. She did exactly what you would expect for a young law professor starting out in her career. No problems with that at all. But, like I said, I was correcting another poster for having his facts wrong. Another poster who was very rude in accusing someonelse for being guilty of the same thing he himself was.

I didn't argue any of the other points, like whether or not she's a good lawyer, ( I think she is, and I've said so before), or whether or not she was legally and ethically bound to represent her client to the best of her ability. There's no reason to think that she didn't. I didn't argue those points, because I agree with them.

If you think I'm the problem, then you don't have to reply to me. But if you do, at least make a better attempt to understand my position.

[Ghostpanther]

Yup, that's the other group I was referring to in my first post. Trump supporters are either stupid or selfish bastards. I usually try to keep an open mind and I lean more conservative on fiscal policy, but this guy is just an embarrassment.

So you have that much disdain for tens of millions of law abiding, hard working, patriotic Americans simply because they support Trump. That is pretty sad you have sunk that low.

[Felya]

So you have that much disdain for tens of millions of law abiding, hard working, patriotic Americans simply because they support Trump. That is pretty sad you have sunk that low.

When did supporting Trump make you law abiding, hard working or patriotic Americans? Those have nothing to do with each other and your attempts at tugging at emotion are as flawed as your support of Trump.

[Wulfey]

Yup, that's the other group I was referring to in my first post. Trump supporters are either stupid or selfish bastards. I usually try to keep an open mind and I lean more conservative on fiscal policy, but this guy is just an embarrassment.

I spoke at length with my Trumpkin grandpa. His concern was the browning of America. Trump's message that he will fight back against that browning is very clear and compelling to a certain audience.

EDIT: compare the Trump positions with the Democratic party positions. On each, Trump has a hard answer that appeals to white vulnerability. Conservatives of all stripes are terrified of immigration reform because it will make so many brown voters that the white veto will be swamped. Democrats are embracing the fact that they are the most diverse political party in the world and refuse to do anything to slow down the browning of America. Of course, I think the Democrats have the better of this as they are embracing an immutable reality and maintaining liberal (due process and equality) values.

[Breccia]

5 pages was spent on it because people can't fucking read.

*cough*

I think she took the case because she wanted to take the case, for the most part. You seem to agree with that.

Before we add your name to the "can't fucking read" list, I'll point out that I don't really agree with you. Based on the people who were actually there at the time, including herself, Clinton's attitude towards the case appears to be the same as a migrant worker, desperate for money to feed his family, being offered a job to shovel pig shit for $12 an hour. I have more firsthand experience with pig shit than likely anyone else in this thread, and trust me, I'd rather not have. But $12 is pretty hard to turn down for unskilled labor, especially if you're desperate. I think she wanted the benefits that accepting and trying the case would bring her, but if I had to choose between defending a guilty-ass rapist in court, and shoveling pig shit, I'd ask for a minute to make up my mind. I'm going to make the completely sexist guess that, for a woman, that's an even harder choice to make.

Oh, and Clinton helped found a rape crisis center after the case was over, with the first rape crisis hotline in the entire state. This does not sound like someone who wanted this case to me. Or, quite frankly, for someone doing so to make a name for themself.

Oh, and the following year, Clinton was picked up by the Rose Law Firm. Things may have changed in 40 years, but at least right now, they are general practitioners and corporate law. A rape case would be useless in this context. If she did it to make a name for herself, I'm fairly sure it didn't work.

So no, I don't think we agree on that. Just so we're clear.

- - - Updated - - -

I spoke at length with my Trumpkin grandpa. His concern was the browning of America. Trump's message that he will fight back against that browning is very clear and compelling to a certain audience.

I think a lot of us will agree that "racist" is part of "stupid".

[Wulfey]

*cough*



Before we add your name to the "can't fucking read" list, I'll point out that I don't really agree with you. Based on the people who were actually there at the time, including herself, Clinton's attitude towards the case appears to be the same as a migrant worker, desperate for money to feed his family, being offered a job to shovel pig shit for $12 an hour. I have more firsthand experience with pig shit than likely anyone else in this thread, and trust me, I'd rather not have. But $12 is pretty hard to turn down for unskilled labor, especially if you're desperate. I think she wanted the benefits that accepting and trying the case would bring her, but if I had to choose between defending a guilty-ass rapist in court, and shoveling pig shit, I'd ask for a minute to make up my mind. I'm going to make the completely sexist guess that, for a woman, that's an even harder choice to make.

Oh, and Clinton helped found a rape crisis center after the case was over, with the first rape crisis hotline in the entire state. This does not sound like someone who wanted this case to me. Or, quite frankly, for someone doing so to make a name for themself.

Oh, and the following year, Clinton was picked up by the Rose Law Firm. Things may have changed in 40 years, but at least right now, they are general practitioners and corporate law. A rape case would be useless in this context. If she did it to make a name for herself, I'm fairly sure it didn't work.

So no, I don't think we agree on that. Just so we're clear.

- - - Updated - - -



I think a lot of us will agree that "racist" is part of "stupid".

"Racist" is a bit of a trigger word when it comes to conservatives. They regard it as a microagression. Try using the phrase "white nationalism" instead. White nationalism gets at the white vulnerability and the political importance of a suburban white veto on federal policy. Sure, we both know it is plain racism. But in mixed company white nationalism works better.

[Merkava]

*cough*



Before we add your name to the "can't fucking read" list, I'll point out that I don't really agree with you. Based on the people who were actually there at the time, including herself, Clinton's attitude towards the case appears to be the same as a migrant worker, desperate for money to feed his family, being offered a job to shovel pig shit for $12 an hour. I have more firsthand experience with pig shit than likely anyone else in this thread, and trust me, I'd rather not have. But $12 is pretty hard to turn down for unskilled labor, especially if you're desperate. I think she wanted the benefits that accepting and trying the case would bring her, but if I had to choose between defending a guilty-ass rapist in court, and shoveling pig shit, I'd ask for a minute to make up my mind. I'm going to make the completely sexist guess that, for a woman, that's an even harder choice to make.
.

First of all, I think we're in agreement that Hillary Clinton didn't take the case because the judge ordered her to, and because she was being threatened with disbarment if she refused. Is that correct? If so, then that's what I meant when I said that we were in agreement.

Moving on, your analogy is lost on me. Are you suggesting that Clinton did it for the money?

Edit - And Clinton was picked up by Rose in Feb of 1977. Her husband becoming Attorney General a month earlier probably had more to do with that.

[Breccia]

Moving on, your analogy is lost on me. Are you suggesting that Clinton did it for the money?

Well,

I think she wanted the benefits that accepting and trying the case would bring her

b) being a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for your legal clinic when a judge throws a really filthy rapist trial directly at you and you think, hmm, as a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for a legal clinic, would turning this down really help?

These were both on this very page. You quoted them both yourself. Congratulations, your name is on the list.

[Merkava]

Well,





These were both on this very page. You quoted them both yourself. Congratulations, your name is on the list.

I still don't understand. Again, are you saying that Hillary took the case for the money? Yes or no?

[Breccia]

I still don't understand.

We know, Merkava. We know.

[Merkava]

We know, Merkava. We know.

Do you have any interest in discussing this? If not, I'll wait for a more serious poster to pick it up.

In the interim, I'll ask one more time; Are you saying that Hillary Clinton took the case for the money? Yes or no?

In case you're curious, Hillary was paid $250 for her services.

[Wulfey]

Ohhh man pages and pages of arguments about HRC's mental state at the time she took a case. Utterly unknowable. You can either assume it was bad, or assume it was good. You could litigate this with actual facts for days, but perhaps she had the best of intentions all along. Or maybe she loves rapists just like you want to say she does. This is angels dancing on the head of a pin. Trump has mainstreamed white nationalism and turned the Republican party into a pure-blood white party who wants to restore the racial advantages that non-college whites enjoyed in the 50s (see "Make America Great Again" and Trump saying it was in the 50s). That is a real issue worth debating to death. Should we be trying to restore the white advantages over harder working brown people (contrast disability/opiod addicted West Virginia Trumpland to the backbreaking labor of the crop picking illegals)?

[Merkava]

Ohhh man pages and pages of arguments about HRC's mental state at the time she took a case. Utterly unknowable. You can either assume it was bad, or assume it was good. You could litigate this with actual facts for days, but perhaps she had the best of intentions all along. Or maybe she loves rapists just like you want to say she does. This is angels dancing on the head of a pin. Trump has mainstreamed white nationalism and turned the Republican party into a pure-blood white party who wants to restore the racial advantages that non-college whites enjoyed in the 50s (see "Make America Great Again" and Trump saying it was in the 50s). That is a real issue worth debating to death. Should we be trying to restore the white advantages over harder working brown people (contrast disability/opiod addicted West Virginia Trumpland to the backbreaking labor of the crop picking illegals)?

I think she took the case because wanted to advance her career and she wanted to provide her services to people in need. I think that's admirable. I think a prosecutor asked her as a favor, like she's on record as saying, and she thought she could do a good job. I think that's pretty much it. I'm just contesting the point that she had to do it under threat of being disbarred. But people see my name attached to a post, and they get defensive and assume that I'm attacking Hillary without cause, even when I'm not. Like Endus did above. I never said anything about her loving rapists. To imply that I hold that position is slanderous.

[Lenonis]

So, given the unfortunate detour that should really go in the Clinton thread -- what do people think we'll see from Trump during the debates?

Here are my guesses:
1) Trump will go after Clinton about her emails.
2) Trump will try to paint Clinton as soft on terrorism, if not a full on *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* to imply that she supports ISIS. AKA -- founder of ISIS type comments.
3) Trump will likely bring up her unfavorable ratings, her general lack of enthusiasm with her base, and such.

Things that are options but I'm not sold that he'll go after due to the risk of it getting thrown right back in his face:
1) Bill's infidelity. I can almost promise you that Clinton is prepared and ready to throw that right back in his face in a way that would be really embarrassing for Trump.
2) Clinton's health. He's been fairly reserved on this. And if Clinton appears strong and energetic it might appear desperate.
3) The moderation -- he doesn't want to appear a whiny baby. He will probably save that for after the debate in press conferences and interviews.
4) Anything that would appear misogynistic. He has a bit of a problem with off-the-cuff remarks about women that are less than flattering and if he whips one of them out during the debate he will likely pay for it.
5) Benghazi -- I'm sure Trump realizes that only plays to the GOP base these days, which he doesn't need. And it is something people are really starting to tire of...however the GOP convention trotted it out so he might bring it up. It would give Clinton a really good opportunity to just list off all the investigations that found no wrongdoing on her part -- Trump is not likely to be the winner out of the exchange.
6) Clinton's bank ties -- he might bring it up, but he runs the risk of her being able to retort that while she's given speeches and run around with special interests he IS the special interest that corrupted the politicians -- and could bring up his statements about bragging about buying off politicians. Not something that is endearing to the public these days.

What do other people think?