• Sanders acknowledges Democratic race is over
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599350]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] What money? Public defenders have pretty mid-to-low pay ranges compared to corporate lawyers and most other law careers. Like $45-70k a year. Putting the law over your own personal morals is a sign of dedication and maturity, not abandoning personal values. Someone who recognizes the value of the law and puts their personal issues with the case aside is respecting the law to an insane degree. She's a major donor to the Children's Defense Fund. But you don't care about that because that's unilaterally positive - you only care about the negative shit, as seen in your baby snarky response to wauter's "three positive things."
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50599437]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.[/QUOTE] Hillary accepted millions from Saudi Arabia, so what's your point? [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50599450]What money? Public defenders have pretty mid-to-low pay ranges compared to corporate lawyers and most other law careers. Like $45-70k a year. Putting the law over your own personal morals is a sign of dedication and maturity, not abandoning personal values. Someone who recognizes the value of the law and puts their personal issues with the case aside is respecting the law to an insane degree. She's a major donor to the Children's Defense Fund. But you don't care about that because that's unilaterally positive - you only care about the negative shit, as seen in your baby snarky response to wauter's "three positive things."[/QUOTE] She may be a major donor to them, but she also really pissed them off when she and Bill campaigned to end welfare, and the founder of CDF had some really nasty things to say about her. On the topic of being a lawyer, I fully believe that they're putting their morals in the backseat to fulfill their career responsibilities, and that's something I don't want in my president. I want absolute morals (another thing clinton doesn't have) that are more important than career responsibilities.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599495]Hillary accepted millions from Saudi Arabia, so what's your point?[/QUOTE] do you want the mob to have increased freedom of movement and less legal intervention within America? Because if you think it's bad when politicians put money in the pockets of their political buddies, I think doing the same for organised crime syndicates within the United States wouldn't be too great either.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50599520]do you want the mob to have increased freedom of movement and less legal intervention within America? Because if you think it's bad when politicians put money in the pockets of their political buddies, I think doing the same for organised crime syndicates within the United States wouldn't be too great either.[/QUOTE] Where's the source on that, I've heard rumors but haven't seen the kind of hard evidence that Hillary has been involved in numerous crimes.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599531]Where's the source on that, I've heard rumors but haven't seen the kind of hard evidence that Hillary has been involved in numerous crimes.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.vice.com/read/a-brief-history-of-donald-trump-and-the-mafia[/url] Here's some of the occurrences. I'm not going to list them out myself, because there's a lot and they go on for a good while.
[QUOTE=BioWaster;50574628]Bernman got his money, he played his role. Now we wait for Hillary to jump ship and Joe Biden to take up the position and [I]flop[/I].[/QUOTE] what kind of fever dream post is this like [i]what[/i] [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] i honestly don't even know what this is trying to say. its like a word salad
[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] How? He wants to put Muslims on a watchlist lmao
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50599647]How? He wants to put Muslims on a watchlist lmao[/QUOTE] Clinton wants to use a DOJ watchlist (with little oversight) to deny people guns, which is just as bad in my opinion
From the other thread since it got slightly derailed as I mixed these two together: [QUOTE=cody8295;50599765]Ok now lemme ask you, why should I apologize for bringing up Clintons past? Does it pain somebody to know that the Democratic nominee once defended a rapist? Why should I be apologetic about that? I never said she should throw away her entire career, she was a public defender and could have claimed a conflict of interest if she was that against defending him. She asked the judge once to be removed and in my opinion that's not enough effort if she was sincerely morally conflicted.[/QUOTE] It's because it's absolutely irrelevant, and you're bringing it up as a negative against her. You're saying, "Not only has she done this but she defended a rapist as well. How [I]scandalous[/I]." You're not providing context. You're maliciously omitting information. You're being unfair and immoral. Also, she did. The judge wouldn't let her drop her case. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [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] ^ also, here's you asking you to throw away her career.
[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] Would you have a president which acts acts cording to his or her own interpretation of morality, or one which acts according to the law? You see, in a republic, nothing is above the law. Not a criminal, not a judge or jury. Not the president. The law is supreme
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50600029]Would you have a president which acts acts cording to his or her own interpretation of morality, or one which acts according to the law? You see, in a republic, nothing is above the law. Not a criminal, not a judge or jury. Not the president. The law is supreme[/QUOTE] Before you say "personal morality", Cody, do recall that the ban on gay marriage was a thing for quite some time because of personal morality attempting to replace legality.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50600045]Before you say "personal morality", Cody, do recall that the ban on gay marriage was a thing for quite some time because of personal morality attempting to replace legality.[/QUOTE] As well as civil rights and interracial marriage
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50600203]As well as civil rights and interracial marriage[/QUOTE] And what does that history lesson have anything to do with defending a child rapist and getting him off very lightly, which is an accurate way of saying what actually happened, despite the fact that you think it's in malicious intent. I'm not writing an essay here, of course I'm going to omit informaton, I'm just getting across a small detail of many many manyyy details of Clinton which disqualify her from my vote. Your rhetoric is weak and you seem to be grasping for any trivial little part of my entire argument to somehow discredit everybody who changes from Sanders to Trump from having any legitimacy. Please just accept that many people will not vote for Clinton or Stein or Johnson, because they want a politician who is capable of beating Hillary Clinton, and at the moment he is the only one. Will that change? Maybe. If Jill starts polling at 38% by November I will vote for her, but Trump is the only other viable option at this point.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50600882]you seem to be grasping for any trivial little part of my entire argument to somehow discredit everybody who changes from Sanders to Trump from having any legitimacy.[/QUOTE] Well there's a good reason for that, but it isn't worth explaning it to you (again).
[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] Trump thinks global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to fool us and wants to destroy the EPA. "Cause less harm to this country" my ass.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50599350]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] Given that there's this thing in US law called "innocent until proven guilty/otherwise", no lawyer has willfully defended a 'known' criminal, ever, since they only become a criminal at the end of the court case in which the lawyer's job is over.
Say what you will about Trump, or Clinton, at least Trump didnt rig the election process to win the nomination, he got there completely legitimately. That's why I'd rather vote for Trump, I'm not using my vote to vote for someone who literally tries to kill and subvert democracy right in front of us.. Honestly if you are a true leftist in any way you have to see how Hillary just damages the left in the long term. I mean that's what she's based her whole career on, underselling and selling out the left for her own personal benefit. That's not being a leftist, that's a little thing called 'controlled opposition'.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50601066]Trump thinks global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to fool us and wants to destroy the EPA. "Cause less harm to this country" my ass.[/QUOTE] I've tried to explain this to him, but he honest-to-god believes Trump is actually a pro-choice paragon in favor of legalizing all drugs based on what he said in interviews 20 years ago. He thinks Trump is just pandering to the right - but god forbid Hillary's camp push articles about her being like your abuela, that's disgusting inexcusable pandering! Trump thinks global warming is a Chinese conspiracy, wants to dismantle the entirety of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, favors returning to the Gold Standard, wants to dismantle the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, favors right-to-work legislation, wants to get rid of the estate tax entirely, opposes birthright citizenship guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, plans to loosen defamation laws to "win lots and lots of money," wants to give [i]anyone[/i] who ever kills a police officer an immediate death penalty, is [B]strongly opposed to net neutrality[/B], and believes "too many vaccines" cause autism. But in one interview 20 years ago he said he was in favor of legalizing drugs, so it's okay. Who cares that he also called Social Security a "ponzi scheme" and wanted to privatize the entire thing? That was in the same time period - but legal drugs and no corruption. He hasn't released his taxes since the mid 70s. And when he released them then, [i]he paid zero dollars in income tax[/i] despite being a self-professed millionaire. If he was respectable back then, and he's just pandering now, like Cody insists he is, he was a tax dodging privatization nutjob anyways.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50605430]I've tried to explain this to him, but he honest-to-god believes Trump is actually a pro-choice paragon in favor of legalizing all drugs based on what he said in interviews 20 years ago. He thinks Trump is just pandering to the right - but god forbid Hillary's camp push articles about her being like your abuela, that's disgusting inexcusable pandering! Trump thinks global warming is a Chinese conspiracy, wants to dismantle the entirety of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, favors returning to the Gold Standard, wants to dismantle the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, favors right-to-work legislation, wants to get rid of the estate tax entirely, opposes birthright citizenship guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, plans to loosen defamation laws to "win lots and lots of money," wants to give [i]anyone[/i] who ever kills a police officer an immediate death penalty, is [B]strongly opposed to net neutrality[/B], and believes "too many vaccines" cause autism. But in one interview 20 years ago he said he was in favor of legalizing drugs, so it's okay. Who cares that he also called Social Security a "ponzi scheme" and wanted to privatize the entire thing? That was in the same time period - but legal drugs and no corruption. He hasn't released his taxes since the mid 70s. And when he released them then, [i]he paid zero dollars in income tax[/i] despite being a self-professed millionaire. If he was respectable back then, and he's just pandering now, like Cody insists he is, he was a tax dodging privatization nutjob anyways.[/QUOTE] He's not exactly wrong about Trump pandering to the right, though. During the primary Trump was only trying to do two things, get as much attention as possible, and appeal specifically to the Republican voter base. He's stated himself that when the general election comes around he'll start to change his approach. We'll see just how dramatic that change ends up being. The issue as I see it, is that for one it's hard to tell what his policies really are. Almost everything he's said during his campaign could have been a complete fabrication, an exaggeration of his actual views, or even his honest stance. And who can really tell the difference? My other issue is, well, he's lying his ass off to pander to his voter base. The only difference between him and every other politician who lies and manipulates the public is that Trump is seemingly much better at it.
[QUOTE=elowin;50605691]He's not exactly wrong about Trump pandering to the right, though. During the primary Trump was only trying to do two things, get as much attention as possible, and appeal specifically to the Republican voter base. He's stated himself that when the general election comes around he'll start to change his approach. We'll see just how dramatic that change ends up being. The issue as I see it, is that for one it's hard to tell what his policies really are. Almost everything he's said during his campaign could have been a complete fabrication, an exaggeration of his actual views, or even his honest stance. And who can really tell the difference? My other issue is, well, he's lying his ass off to pander to his voter base. The only difference between him and every other politician who lies and manipulates the public is that Trump is seemingly much better at it.[/QUOTE] Totally agree. If he's just pandering, he's lying - but since he's a businessman, that's okay, when it isn't for a career politician. Even though the businessman is doing it on a far larger scale. And Trump tends to gets a free pass for pandering, but career politicians don't. It doesn't make sense. The only explanation is that Trump is pandering to [i]those guys[/i], but Clinton is pandering to [i]me[/i] - why is it okay if it's directed at the far-right instead of the left? Why is that excusable, but pandering to the left isn't? It's 100% hypocritical to [i]excuse[/i] Trump's policies [i]because[/i] they're "just pandering," and then to [I]criticize[/I] Hillary's policies [i]because[/i] they're "just pandering." Cody does both.
Well in my opinion business pandering is a sort of trade so both parties get something they think they want or need, but when a career politician panders its only for their or their reptilian masters gain.
[QUOTE=a203xi;50605338]Say what you will about Trump, or Clinton, at least Trump didnt rig the election process to win the nomination, he got there completely legitimately. That's why I'd rather vote for Trump, I'm not using my vote to vote for someone who literally tries to kill and subvert democracy right in front of us.. Honestly if you are a true leftist in any way you have to see how Hillary just damages the left in the long term. I mean that's what she's based her whole career on, underselling and selling out the left for her own personal benefit. That's not being a leftist, that's a little thing called 'controlled opposition'.[/QUOTE] I know a lot of people are upset about the DNC unfairly choosing Clinton (and rightfully so), but she also won against Bernie in terms of delegates, popular vote, etc. The polls back this, the exit polls back this and so on and so forth. If you're really a leftist, you would be far more concerned about Trump's complete disdain for the court system and stated intent to appoint an anti planned parenthood judge onto the supreme court.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50606807]I know a lot of people are upset about the DNC unfairly choosing Clinton (and rightfully so), but she also won against Bernie in terms of delegates, popular vote, etc. The polls back this, the exit polls back this and so on and so forth. If you're really a leftist, you would be far more concerned about Trump's complete disdain for the court system and stated intent to appoint an anti planned parenthood judge onto the supreme court.[/QUOTE] The exit polls for this democracitc primary have been so far off yhat scholarly articles have pointed out that its likely voter fraud. The dnc even discontinued exit polls for the last few states to not raise more concerns
[QUOTE=cody8295;50606957]The exit polls for this democracitc primary have been so far off yhat scholarly articles have pointed out that its likely voter fraud. The dnc even discontinued exit polls for the last few states to not raise more concerns[/QUOTE] What scholarly articles? Those take months if not [i]years[/i] to write?
[QUOTE=sb27;50607026]What scholarly articles? Those take months if not [i]years[/i] to write?[/QUOTE] Not yet peer reviewed [url]http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/[/url]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50607074]Not yet peer reviewed [url]http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/[/url][/QUOTE] [url]http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/[/url] Not yet peer reviewed.
[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. [B]In every respect, clinton is better than trump. [/B]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] Homosexuality... Trump may be against it now, but if you count the years hes been pro gays to the point of pro gay marriage for years and years before any top tier politician, and thus has seniority on her. Also i fully expect trump to flipflop on basically anything even remotely conservative he said in the election since hes holding those positions for the same amount of days as hes running for president. Hillary already flipflopped 3 times on the gay stuff, so theres also that. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50601114]Given that there's this thing in US law called "innocent until proven guilty/otherwise", no lawyer has willfully defended a 'known' criminal, ever, since they only become a criminal at the end of the court case in which the lawyer's job is over.[/QUOTE] Actually, after a trial the law still does not know, its without a reasonable doubt, not without a doubt...
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50607159][url]http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/[/url] Not yet peer reviewed.[/QUOTE] All i got from your post is that you think the anomalies in exit polls indicative of voter fraud arent important
So Sanders is now voting for Clinton. This is so delicious. I wonder what Reddit and FP thinks of this?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.