[QUOTE=.Isak.;50596000]Cody doesn't care about policy - he cares about voting for an anti-establishment candidate and nothing else. I've shown him time and time again how Hillary's policies are far closer to Bernie's than Trump's, and he's ignored it over and over and over.
He doesn't care that Trump hasn't released his tax returns in something like 20 years - the first presidential candidate to refuse to do so in decades. He doesn't care that the last time he did release his tax returns he paid zero dollars in federal taxes. He doesn't care about tax dodging twenty years ago - but he only cares about Trump's policies twenty years ago.
Do you support the death penalty? Trump was a huge advocate back then. What about privatizing social security? Another idea he had decades ago.
The only reason I've found that Cody can explain his support is "Trump said in an interview that we should legalize all drugs. He's anti-establishment." Stop cherry-picking positive things Trump said twenty years ago and start looking at the whole picture. He said, time and time again, that Hillary would make a good president before he decided to run in 2014. Do you not trust his judgment on that? Why do you trust his judgment on any other issue?[/QUOTE]
Here we go again with the mindreading and false assumptions. Typical of SH
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50593749]I know I'm not supposed to play the woman card, but when Sanders supporters would rather vote for trump, the person who's believes the exact opposite of bernie sanders, it makes me believe that they don't like hillary for the sole reason that she's a woman.
In every respect, clinton is better than trump. Pick any issue, and clinton is better than trump. You can't deny this. And when people say "why would you vote for the person that bernie sanders rails against and believes the exact opposite as you?" The answer is "because reasons"
I mean, when it's apparent that hillary is the more preferable candidate in every category to a big racist oragne, the only factor left that I can see is that she's a woman.
At the very least, anybody voting for trump when they supported sanders tells me that sanders supporters don't actually believe in their own policies, otherwise they wouldn't vote for a blatantly racist republican who will do the exact opposite of the beliefs they're pretending to have[/QUOTE]
I can't believe you would even act as though 'because she's a woman' is a legitimate argument. I don't agree with Cody but he literally posted his reasons for not voting Clinton on the last page. It's not 'because reasons'. If you're going to debate why a Sanders voter should vote Clinton, then address their actual reasoning without defaulting to the woman card. And no, saying 'I know I shouldn't bring out the woman card' doesn't make it okay to do so.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50593086]She has shown disgusting apathy for the American people via her constant lies and deceptions.
She broke a law which anybody else would serve prison time for, and the evidence is widespread.
She has voted for bills and actions I do not agree with.
[del]She was a defense attorney and a good one, freeing at least 1 child rapist.[/del]
The dozens of scandals she's been involved in, but mostly hiring friends of the family to be Bills travel cabinet during his presidency and taking millions from Saudi Arabia and Wall St.
The way she changes her opinion to fit the populist message is worrisome.
The way she mishandled above top-secret info was negligent.
Her foreign policy would be as disastrous if not more so than Trumps
I don't believe she'll pass as many progressive bills as Trump, and that's taking into consideration that Trump will likely take us a few steps back with progressivism. The way I see it, Hilldawg is a republican running as a democrat and Trump is a democrat running as a republican.
They both suck but hillary would make for a much worse president.[/QUOTE]
I've struck through the child rapist thing because that's already been addressed, but that was his weakest point anyway.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50598089]I can't believe you would even act as though 'because she's a woman' is a legitimate argument. I don't agree with Cody but he literally posted his reasons for not voting Clinton on the last page. It's not 'because reasons'. If you're going to debate why a Sanders voter should vote Clinton, then address their actual reasoning without defaulting to the woman card. And no, saying 'I know I shouldn't bring out the woman card' doesn't make it okay to do so.
I've struck through the child rapist thing because that's already been addressed, but that was his weakest point anyway.[/QUOTE]
Why strike it when its true? She gota child rapist off with less time than a black man would serve for selling drugs. Seems pretty immoral to me but if you're voting for Clinton then you're probably already too deep into the dissonance to care
[QUOTE=cody8295;50593752]I love how your posts get less and less substantiative each time, very telling
[editline]25th June 2016[/editline]
There is maybe 1 or 2 categories where Clinton is a better candidate, and her criminal record outweighs any benefits she has over trump[/QUOTE]
As opposed to yours which seem increasingly desperate and nonsensical?
[QUOTE=cody8295;50597883]Here we go again with the mindreading and false assumptions. Typical of SH[/QUOTE]
At least I'm making false assumptions about some anonymous person on the Internet, instead of basing my voting choices on false assumptions about two people poised to fight for one of the most powerful positions in the world.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598115]Why strike it when its true? She gota child rapist off with less time than a black man would serve for selling drugs. Seems pretty immoral to me but if you're voting for Clinton then you're probably already too deep into the dissonance to care[/QUOTE]
She was a court appointed defense lawyer, she did her job??? What about the judge in the case, or the jury? Or the prosecution? It was all Hillary's doing that she successfully defended her client right?
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
Oh guess what, there never was a jury because the [b]mother of the child requested a plea bargain to prevent it from going to trial[/b], so what about literally anyone else involved in the judicial process?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50598163]She was a court appointed defense lawyer, she did her job??? What about the judge in the case, or the jury? Or the prosecution? It was all Hillary's doing that she successfully defended her client right?[/QUOTE]
If i was a defense attorney and got appointed to a case with those circumstances, i would claim a conflict of interest and demand to be taken off the case.
Love how yall feel the need to explain why I'm wrong. I have reasons behind my decision and if it doesnt make sense to you, try not to think about it too much
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598176]If i was a defense attorney and got appointed to a case with those circumstances, i would claim a conflict of interest and demand to be taken off the case.
Love how yall feel the need to explain why I'm wrong. I have reasons behind my decision and if it doesnt make sense to you, try not to think about it too much[/QUOTE]
You should try to educate yourself by reading the snopes article since it perfectly explains exactly what you just said. I think people here are more perplexed by your nonsensical ideology and it's funny to see you attempt to rationalize your crazy beliefs. It's kind of like pointing and laughing at a monkey doing crazy shit behind a cage.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598176]If i was a defense attorney and got appointed to a case with those circumstances, i would claim a conflict of interest and demand to be taken off the case.
Love how yall feel the need to explain why I'm wrong. I have reasons behind my decision and if it doesnt make sense to you, try not to think about it too much[/QUOTE]
You would make a terrible defense attorney, then. That's part of being a lawyer - if DA's just argued "oh I can't defend this triple child rapist necrophiliac murderer, it's against my morals," they'd be stuck in the court system forever since the state is required to provide defense.
That's the responsibility of a DA. Unless you think someone like Clarence Darrow shouldn't be renowned because he defended two rich kids who [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb"]literally straight-up murdered a random child[/URL] to see what it felt like. You really don't get to pick and choose who to defend as a DA - no matter what, they're criminals, and even criminals deserve a fair defense.
I just want to enjoy his posts while he lasts since when Clinton wins he's getting toxx banned.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50598190]You should try to educate yourself by reading the snopes article since it perfectly explains exactly what you just said. I think people here are more perplexed by your nonsensical ideology and it's funny to see you attempt to rationalize your crazy beliefs. It's kind of like pointing and laughing at a monkey doing crazy shit behind a cage.[/QUOTE]
"Haha he has different beliefs than me!" Grow up dude.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598251]"Haha he has different beliefs than me!" Grow up dude.[/QUOTE]
You're entitled to your own crazy beliefs but I've seen more coherent rational for voting for Trump by Wystan than you ever gave.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50598218]You would make a terrible defense attorney, then. That's part of being a lawyer - if DA's just argued "oh I can't defend this triple child rapist necrophiliac murderer, it's against my morals," they'd be stuck in the court system forever since the state is required to provide defense.
That's the responsibility of a DA. Unless you think someone like Clarence Darrow shouldn't be renowned because he defended two rich kids who [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb"]literally straight-up murdered a random child[/URL] to see what it felt like. You really don't get to pick and choose who to defend as a DA - no matter what, they're criminals, and even criminals deserve a fair defense.[/QUOTE]
Look idk where the moral dilemma is, if you dont want to defend a child rapist, just quit. Idc who she sympathized with or if the judge was giving her a hsrd time, i do not want my president to be that person whos able to say "fuck it. Im just doing my job, its okay that its immoral"
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50598259]You're entitled to your own crazy beliefs but I've seen more coherent rational for voting for Trump by Wystan than you ever gave.[/QUOTE]
And which ones were they?
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598263]Look idk where the moral dilemma is, if you dont want to defend a child rapist, just quit. Idc who she sympathized with or if the judge was giving her a hsrd time, i do not want my president to be that person whos able to say "fuck it. Im just doing my job, its okay that its immoral"[/QUOTE]
Refusing to defend a client as a public defender in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty is immoral. I don't think you understand how the judicial process in America works.
Cody you keep bringing up the child rapist thing, even though you don't know the correct story. Even then, did you not hear the story of John Adams defending the British soldiers in the Boston massacre?
[quote] Preston and his soldiers could not find a legal representative counsel, they approached several lawyers without success until 35-year old John Adams agreed to head their defense.
But why did John Adams and Josiah Quincy agree to take on the defense of men who had killed five Boston residents?, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Coldwell, Crispus Attucks and Patrick Carr. This was an unpopular assignment, one that could have adversely affected his reputation and future income. The reasons for John’s acceptance of the case are difficult to assume. While he strongly believed that all men were entitled to a fair trial and that they deserved equal justice, he knew of the dangers to his practice and of the violence that the mob was capable therefore endangering his wife and young children. On the other hand, in the long term, he might be remembered as a man who put law above his personal beliefs.[/quote]
[url]http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/[/url]
What clinton did emulated one of the founding fathers, which is a story taught to 3rd graders to show that the rule of law comes before personal feeling, emotion, and retribution. In my opinion, defending a child rapist makes Clinton MORE noble.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598263] i do not want my president to be that person whos able to say "fuck it. Im just doing my job, its okay that its immoral"
?[/QUOTE]
:what:
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598115]Why strike it when its true? She gota child rapist off with less time than a black man would serve for selling drugs. Seems pretty immoral to me but if you're voting for Clinton then you're probably already too deep into the dissonance to care[/QUOTE]
I thought I wasn't voting period, but I guess since you're incapable of handling disagreement without grouping people together, I guess in your eyes I'm a Clinton supporter.
The point wasn't that you opposition to Clinton was bad - I have problems with Clinton - however you shouldn't twist stuff to make her seem more evil than she is. You don't need to dress up reality.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598176]If i was a defense attorney and got appointed to a case with those circumstances, i would claim a conflict of interest and [B]demand to be taken off the case[/B].[/QUOTE]
Oh boy, it's not like it said that in my article. It's not like she tried multiple times and failed.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598263]just quit[/QUOTE]
It's stuff like this that makes it really hard to see you as someone that will ever let the other person win. They can't do [I]anything[/I] right for you, huh?
"Why didn't Clinton just throw away her entire career that she worked her entire life for? I guess she's SHILLARY, am I right guys? Oh, you guys just can't handle alternate opinions."
[b]EDIT:[/b]
Here's a legitimate test for you to try, and I'm being dead serious:
Name three good things about Clinton. No matter how much you hate someone, in most cases you should be able to find some good in what they do. If you can't find three good things about Clinton, there's something wrong. It's not like she's the leader of Scientology. It's not like she's a terrible African gang leader that forces kids to kill others. She's not leading innocent lesbians into her apartment to eat their brains in an alcoholic cannibalistic indulgence. [I]She's a human being.[/I]
You can disagree with her policies. You can disagree with how she's conducted herself in her duties for her job. You can disagree with a lot of things. You can claim she's a crook. But even with someone like Richard Nixon, you could probably come up with three nice things to say about him. And having that perspective in which someone isn't nonredeemable is healthier than treating them like death incarnate.
Do some background checks on both candidates, find out if the propaganda against/for both is true or fabricated, think outside the box, research shit without biases or at the very least look at the sources from both sides of the political spectrum and stop [I]complaining[/I] about lesser evils, calculated votes and splitting shit up with a third party.
You can all join that Anonymous Humanity Party next election.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50598285]Cody you keep bringing up the child rapist thing, even though you don't know the correct story. Even then, did you not hear the story of John Adams defending the British soldiers in the Boston massacre?
[url]http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/[/url]
What clinton did emulated one of the founding fathers, which is a story taught to 3rd graders to show that the rule of law comes before personal feeling, emotion, and retribution. In my opinion, defending a child rapist makes Clinton MORE noble.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't have voted for John Adams either, if defending a criminal is more important that morals to somebody then they shouldn't be president. They make a great lawyer but they shouldn't be in the oval office. And I keep bringing it up because somebody picked it out of a list of a dozen things I don't like about her, so now we're talking about it.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50598391]I thought I wasn't voting period, but I guess since you're incapable of handling disagreement without grouping people together, I guess in your eyes I'm a Clinton supporter.
The point wasn't that you opposition to Clinton was bad - I have problems with Clinton - however you shouldn't twist stuff to make her seem more evil than she is. You don't need to dress up reality.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
Oh boy, it's not like it said that in my article. It's not like she tried multiple times and failed.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
It's stuff like this that makes it really hard to see you as someone that will ever let the other person win. They can't do [I]anything[/I] right for you, huh?
"Why didn't Clinton just throw away her entire career that she worked her entire life for? I guess she's SHILLARY, am I right guys? Oh, you guys just can't handle alternate opinions."
[b]EDIT:[/b]
Here's a legitimate test for you to try, and I'm being dead serious:
Name three good things about Clinton. No matter how much you hate someone, in most cases you should be able to find some good in what they do. If you can't find three good things about Clinton, there's something wrong. It's not like she's the leader of Scientology. It's not like she's a terrible African gang leader that forces kids to kill others. She's not leading innocent lesbians into her apartment to eat their brains in an alcoholic cannibalistic indulgence. [I]She's a human being.[/I]
You can disagree with her policies. You can disagree with how she's conducted herself in her duties for her job. You can disagree with a lot of things. You can claim she's a crook. But even with someone like Richard Nixon, you could probably come up with three nice things to say about him. And having that perspective in which someone isn't nonredeemable is healthier than treating them like death incarnate.[/QUOTE]
Multiple times? Can you paste in the part where it says that? I see she tried once to get off the case and it was unsuccessful, which is lacking in effort in my book.
Here's 3 good things about clinton:
She's always loyal to her donors (the 50k club, not us plebs)
She is quick to "evolve"
She really good at being a lawyer
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599264]if defending a criminal is more important that morals to somebody then they shouldn't be president.[/QUOTE]
Only you could make dedication to your job and logical desicion making ("innocent before proven guilty") out to be a bad thing.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
Do you think before you make arguments, or do you just try and be as contrarian as possible?
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50599288]Only you could make dedication to your job and logical desicion making ("innocent before proven guilty") out to be a bad thing.
[editline]26th June 2016[/editline]
Do you think before you make arguments, or do you just try and be as contrarian as possible?[/QUOTE]
I don't think your job entitles you to be immoral, why should it? If you don't think you should do your job, then don't. Nobody put a gun to her head and made her defend a rapist. I don't know why you find that hard to understand
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599311]I don't think your job entitles you to be immoral, why should it? If you don't think you should do your job, then don't. Nobody put a gun to her head and made her defend a rapist. I don't know why you find that hard to understand[/QUOTE]
Lol it isn't immoral to do literally what lawyers are expected to do dude. Would you rather we just throw out due process for people accused of sex crimes and brutal murders?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50581761]When it comes from Cody, he legit believes it's a serious possibility.[/QUOTE]
You're still an awful person.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50599323]Lol it isn't immoral to do literally what lawyers are expected to do dude. Would you rather we just throw out due process for people accused of sex crimes and brutal murders?[/QUOTE]
It is immoral to do what some lawyers do, and for some people that's absolutely fine, and due process remains intact because some people don't care about tainting their morals a little for the money. I don't know where you got the idea that due process shouldn't exist, but again, nobody forced hillary to take the case. The judge may have told her once, "no" but she gladly accepted her fate and got him an extremely short sentence.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50598251]"Haha he has different beliefs than me!" Grow up dude.[/QUOTE]
It's not that you have different beliefs, it's that the way you present your beliefs often comes off as unstable and delusional
Like I've said, you choose Trump over Clinton because Clinton is a criminal, when it is very plausible that Trump himself has been in bed with organised crime syndicates, and has ran small businesses into the ground.
It's not just the content either, it's the way the words are collected and presented, it comes across as muddled and disjointed
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50599391]It's not that you have different beliefs, it's that the way you present your beliefs often comes off as unstable and delusional
[B]Like I've said, you choose Trump over Clinton because Clinton is a criminal[/B], when it is very plausible that Trump himself has been in bed with organised crime syndicates, and has ran small businesses into the ground.
It's not just the content either, it's the way the words are collected and presented, it comes across as muddled and disjointed[/QUOTE]
Quote me on that? The reason I'm voting for trump is because he's the lesser evil and imho he will cause less harm to this country. In my book, most politicians are criminals. The degree of their crime is to be considered.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599401]Quote me on that? The reason I'm voting for trump is because he's the lesser evil and imho he will cause less harm to this country. In my book, most politicians are criminals. The degree of their crime is to be considered.[/QUOTE]
Right, but Trump is likely an actual criminal, not just a 'oh politicians are all crooks' criminal. An actual criminal. He has links to Sammy the Bull. A man that has had people murdered for money.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50599414]Right, but Trump is likely an actual criminal, not just a 'oh politicians are all crooks' criminal. An actual criminal. He has links to Sammy the Bull. A man that has had people murdered for money.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hillary-clintons-state-department-gave-south-sudans-military-a-pass-for-its-child-soldiers/[/url]
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50599414]Right, but Trump is likely an actual criminal, not just a 'oh politicians are all crooks' criminal. An actual criminal. He has links to Sammy the Bull. A man that has had people murdered for money.[/QUOTE]
Ok, and clinton is actually a criminal. You can claim your conspiracies but Hillary has mysterious links to powerful and knowledgeable people that have died as well, and unexpectedly so.
Besides wild conspiracies, Hillary legit broke the law by sending above top secret info over an unsecure server, and would be in prison if she was a normal citizen. Where's the hard evidence that Trump is as much of a criminal?
It doesn't even matter though, like I said, I'm voting trump because lesser evil blah blah blah.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50599424][url]https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hillary-clintons-state-department-gave-south-sudans-military-a-pass-for-its-child-soldiers/[/url][/QUOTE]
Right, I'm not denying that. I'm saying Trump has ties to organised crime syndicates that profit off of human suffering within the United States.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.