The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce you must be wondering why Hillary is not walking away with this thing? Trump is an arrogant know-nothing who treats women like objects. But that does not make Hillary any better. No matter what Trump does it does not change the fact that Hillary is sour, unlikable, and worst of all irredeemably dishonest.

 

As you know I am no fan of Barack Obama. His politics are not mine. Ad he has said things that he knew were not true. But no more than any other politician. If he told me the stove was hot I won't need to touch it to believe him. If Hillary Clinton told me the stove was hot I'd need two sweeps with a laser thermometer and extensive first person testing before I'd believe her.

 

Any normal, sane, career politician should be able to beat Trump as long as they have a pulse, can see lighting and hear thunder. Hillary is having a hard time of it and that says far more about her quality than his or the voters.

Yeah, I'll be honest ...you know what does bug me sometimes on these forums. Everytime I bring up another Trump horror story most members feel the need to then compare his latest disaster to Hilary

 

Why is that ?

Let me answer that with a question. Step back and think, why are u upset about the article of what Trump did but turn a blind eye to what Hillary is bringing with her. Her husband who was president did the same thing except he did it so much that the govt had to step in and make him lose his license to practice law/politics. There are articles from the victims themselves that Hillary intimidated and harassed them to not come forward.

Your okay with Hillary but are outraged at Trumps actions....

Now think why.

Don't go with it's not proven because both Trump and Hillary are equal standing as far of this because nothing's official and it's all hearsay from the victims.

Why do u believe one victim over the other?

 

Now I'll answer. Because u want Hillary to win and are overlooking and not getting the same disgust because ur piece of **** running for president u want to win. It's the same for people who are behind wanting the piece of **** Trump to win.

So you when u bring up NOTHING but bad stuff about Trump and say good things about Hillary, people who are for Trump are feeling the same thing when they post something against Hillary that u overlook and don't take to heart like u would for Trump.

That's where the election gotten to, both candidates are pieces of **** and when one try's not to look like what they are, the other side is quickly there to remind what a piece of **** they are if u get any crazy ideas lol. It's vice versa.

We all lose with this election because most of the country is stuck in the more of **** and won't get out and wash it off.

 

 

 

Please explain to me how on earth this is gonna impact the average American woman. 

Well since you asked and you unintentionally made  a point that confirms you have absolutely no idea or understanding of what gender equality is or more importantly why the majority of women in the USA are offended by Trump

 

Its not what Trump may do, its how he has spoken about women and how he has been very condescending about women on  a  number of levels. Thats the issue, its like if you were gay and Trump said  " homosexuality is an aberration "  you would be  irritated and annoyed   

 

Here is my answer Bruce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFwdvMQHmOI

 

Thats funny .....you naughty GD 

 

It's meant to be funny, but it is also very true. When the power of the executive is out of control, does it matter the gender of the executive wielding that power? It does not.

[Meshugger]

 

 

2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

 

 

 

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:

 

 

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," [Putnam] writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservativism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

 

"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

 

 

That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce you must be wondering why Hillary is not walking away with this thing? Trump is an arrogant know-nothing who treats women like objects. But that does not make Hillary any better. No matter what Trump does it does not change the fact that Hillary is sour, unlikable, and worst of all irredeemably dishonest.

 

As you know I am no fan of Barack Obama. His politics are not mine. Ad he has said things that he knew were not true. But no more than any other politician. If he told me the stove was hot I won't need to touch it to believe him. If Hillary Clinton told me the stove was hot I'd need two sweeps with a laser thermometer and extensive first person testing before I'd believe her.

 

Any normal, sane, career politician should be able to beat Trump as long as they have a pulse, can see lighting and hear thunder. Hillary is having a hard time of it and that says far more about her quality than his or the voters.

Yeah, I'll be honest ...you know what does bug me sometimes on these forums. Everytime I bring up another Trump horror story most members feel the need to then compare his latest disaster to Hilary

 

Why is that ?

Let me answer that with a question. Step back and think, why are u upset about the article of what Trump did but turn a blind eye to what Hillary is bringing with her. Her husband who was president did the same thing except he did it so much that the govt had to step in and make him lose his license to practice law/politics. There are articles from the victims themselves that Hillary intimidated and harassed them to not come forward.

Your okay with Hillary but are outraged at Trumps actions....

Now think why.

Don't go with it's not proven because both Trump and Hillary are equal standing as far of this because nothing's official and it's all hearsay from the victims.

Why do u believe one victim over the other?

 

Now I'll answer. Because u want Hillary to win and are overlooking and not getting the same disgust because ur piece of **** running for president u want to win. It's the same for people who are behind wanting the piece of **** Trump to win.

So you when u bring up NOTHING but bad stuff about Trump and say good things about Hillary, people who are for Trump are feeling the same thing when they post something against Hillary that u overlook and don't take to heart like u would for Trump.

That's where the election gotten to, both candidates are pieces of **** and when one try's not to look like what they are, the other side is quickly there to remind what a piece of **** they are if u get any crazy ideas lol. It's vice versa.

We all lose with this election because most of the country is stuck in the more of **** and won't get out and wash it off.

 

 

 

Please explain to me how on earth this is gonna impact the average American woman. 

Well since you asked and you unintentionally made  a point that confirms you have absolutely no idea or understanding of what gender equality is or more importantly why the majority of women in the USA are offended by Trump

 

Its not what Trump may do, its how he has spoken about women and how he has been very condescending about women on  a  number of levels. Thats the issue, its like if you were gay and Trump said  " homosexuality is an aberration "  you would be  irritated and annoyed   

 

Here is my answer Bruce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFwdvMQHmOI

 

Thats funny .....you naughty GD 

 

It's meant to be funny, but it is also very true. When the power of the executive is out of control, does it matter the gender of the executive wielding that power? It does not.

 

You right of course but I would rather wait and see what Hilary does before I make prognostications of doom and gloom 

[Meshugger]

https://archive.is/wT9So#selection-1081.7600-1081.7732

 

^Hey people of the law, is this legal?

[Amentep]

@amentep It wasn't allowed in court, it was part of an affidavit Hilzilla submitted without proof:

affidavit from Clinton claiming Shelton "is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing" and "has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."

 

Clinton merely said in the affidavit that she had "been informed" of these things about Shelton, but offered no source or proof.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-publishes-fact-check-on-rape-victims-story/article/2604360

 

 

As I understand it, Clinton gave this affidavit of information provided to her as part of a motion for the court to require a psychiatric evaluation be done for the girl. 

 

Which, obviously, would be something you'd want to have happen if you'd been told things that might put into question the truthfulness of the accuser's story.  As to it not "being allowed" in court, as near as I can tell, the defendant took a plea deal with the prosecution before the request ever got considered by the judge (at least the documents that are being used pro- and con- this issue online don't seem to have a ruling from the judge one way or the other on the motion that I, non-lawyer, can tell).

 

Again nothing I've seen here seems out of step with the idea of trying to give the client the best defense possible

Edited October 13, 2016 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

https://archive.is/wT9So#selection-1081.7600-1081.7732

 

^Hey people of the law, is this legal?

Meshugger doesnt it bother you that you have no idea if anything from wikileaks is true?

 

What if this email was fake?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

 

 

 

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:

 

 

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," [Putnam] writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservativism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

 

"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

 

 

That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.

 

 

Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.

[Wrath of Dagon]

https://archive.is/wT9So#selection-1081.7600-1081.7732

 

^Hey people of the law, is this legal?

Not a person of the law, but lying to the people isn't illegal.

 

 

@amentep It wasn't allowed in court, it was part of an affidavit Hilzilla submitted without proof:

affidavit from Clinton claiming Shelton "is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing" and "has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."

 

Clinton merely said in the affidavit that she had "been informed" of these things about Shelton, but offered no source or proof.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-publishes-fact-check-on-rape-victims-story/article/2604360

 

 

As I understand it, Clinton gave this affidavit of information provided to her as part of a motion for the court to require a psychiatric evaluation be done for the girl. 

 

Which, obviously, would be something you'd want to have happen if you'd been told things that might put into question the truthfulness of the accuser's story.  As to it not "being allowed" in court, as near as I can tell, the defendant took a plea deal with the prosecution before the request ever got considered by the judge (at least the documents that are being used pro- and con- this issue online don't seem to have a ruling from the judge one way or the other on the motion that I, non-lawyer, can tell).

 

Again nothing I've seen here seems out of step with the idea of trying to give the client the best defense possible

 

Well, OK, assuming she was actually told this by a credible person and didn't just make it up. Edited October 13, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Malcador]

Headline of "Trump Campaign is pulling out of Virginia" makes me think some editor is trying too hard to be witty.

[Amentep]

Well, OK, assuming she was actually told this by a credible person and didn't just make it up.

 

 

The victim says that was not how she behaved.  Hillary's affidavit is her swearing to the court she was told those things, so either she was told those things (whether the person telling lied or not) or she lied to the court under oath (cue discussions of later Hillary activities, I'm sure! ).  Ultimately the motion never got reviewed in court (again as near as I can tell) so there doesn't appear to be any real determination in regards to veracity.

 

Regardless a defense attorney is legally able to challenge witnesses testimony and to test evidence on behalf of their client, so again while I don't like a lot of what Hillary has done in government in modern days, I can't fault her in this case for...well...being a defense attorney.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Amentep

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

Bruce you must be wondering why Hillary is not walking away with this thing? Trump is an arrogant know-nothing who treats women like objects. But that does not make Hillary any better. No matter what Trump does it does not change the fact that Hillary is sour, unlikable, and worst of all irredeemably dishonest.

 

As you know I am no fan of Barack Obama. His politics are not mine. Ad he has said things that he knew were not true. But no more than any other politician. If he told me the stove was hot I won't need to touch it to believe him. If Hillary Clinton told me the stove was hot I'd need two sweeps with a laser thermometer and extensive first person testing before I'd believe her.

 

Any normal, sane, career politician should be able to beat Trump as long as they have a pulse, can see lighting and hear thunder. Hillary is having a hard time of it and that says far more about her quality than his or the voters.

Yeah, I'll be honest ...you know what does bug me sometimes on these forums. Everytime I bring up another Trump horror story most members feel the need to then compare his latest disaster to Hilary

 

Why is that ?

Let me answer that with a question. Step back and think, why are u upset about the article of what Trump did but turn a blind eye to what Hillary is bringing with her. Her husband who was president did the same thing except he did it so much that the govt had to step in and make him lose his license to practice law/politics. There are articles from the victims themselves that Hillary intimidated and harassed them to not come forward.

Your okay with Hillary but are outraged at Trumps actions....

Now think why.

Don't go with it's not proven because both Trump and Hillary are equal standing as far of this because nothing's official and it's all hearsay from the victims.

Why do u believe one victim over the other?

 

Now I'll answer. Because u want Hillary to win and are overlooking and not getting the same disgust because ur piece of **** running for president u want to win. It's the same for people who are behind wanting the piece of **** Trump to win.

So you when u bring up NOTHING but bad stuff about Trump and say good things about Hillary, people who are for Trump are feeling the same thing when they post something against Hillary that u overlook and don't take to heart like u would for Trump.

That's where the election gotten to, both candidates are pieces of **** and when one try's not to look like what they are, the other side is quickly there to remind what a piece of **** they are if u get any crazy ideas lol. It's vice versa.

We all lose with this election because most of the country is stuck in the more of **** and won't get out and wash it off.

 

 

 

Please explain to me how on earth this is gonna impact the average American woman. 

Well since you asked and you unintentionally made  a point that confirms you have absolutely no idea or understanding of what gender equality is or more importantly why the majority of women in the USA are offended by Trump

 

Its not what Trump may do, its how he has spoken about women and how he has been very condescending about women on  a  number of levels. Thats the issue, its like if you were gay and Trump said  " homosexuality is an aberration "  you would be  irritated and annoyed   

 

 

Anyone else love it when a South African dude that buys prostitutes tries to tell an American he has no idea why women in the USA are offended by Trump?

 

No **** Sherlock, the stuff he says is offensive. But the political spin that he's dangerous to women from a political stance is absolute fiction. He's no more damaging than the average Republican because there's a CLEAR limitation in how far he can push such issues. That's my point.

 

If they really want a political spin that has actual merit to it, they should've gone with how dangerous he is to anyone that's brown. If tomorrow Trump said he wants to go back to the days where women can't vote, USA will tell him to shove it up his ass. If tomorrow Trump says he wants to kick all the Mexicans out, yes, sadly there's a decent chunk of idiots in the USA that would become openly hostile towards anyone brown, thinking they need to personally force them out. Women are not in danger, they just have to put up with some half-wit talking to them like garbage, which I got news for you, they'll survive. If my choice is between some idiot who says mean words to women and someone who undermines the democratic process as we know it, sad day for you women, but I have faith you'll all survive four years of mean words. There's plenty of other issues you're welcome to discuss where that dude falls flat on his face, but I'm saying the misogyny, while clear as day, has no meaningful political ramnifications.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce you must be wondering why Hillary is not walking away with this thing? Trump is an arrogant know-nothing who treats women like objects. But that does not make Hillary any better. No matter what Trump does it does not change the fact that Hillary is sour, unlikable, and worst of all irredeemably dishonest.

 

As you know I am no fan of Barack Obama. His politics are not mine. Ad he has said things that he knew were not true. But no more than any other politician. If he told me the stove was hot I won't need to touch it to believe him. If Hillary Clinton told me the stove was hot I'd need two sweeps with a laser thermometer and extensive first person testing before I'd believe her.

 

Any normal, sane, career politician should be able to beat Trump as long as they have a pulse, can see lighting and hear thunder. Hillary is having a hard time of it and that says far more about her quality than his or the voters.

Yeah, I'll be honest ...you know what does bug me sometimes on these forums. Everytime I bring up another Trump horror story most members feel the need to then compare his latest disaster to Hilary

 

Why is that ?

Let me answer that with a question. Step back and think, why are u upset about the article of what Trump did but turn a blind eye to what Hillary is bringing with her. Her husband who was president did the same thing except he did it so much that the govt had to step in and make him lose his license to practice law/politics. There are articles from the victims themselves that Hillary intimidated and harassed them to not come forward.

Your okay with Hillary but are outraged at Trumps actions....

Now think why.

Don't go with it's not proven because both Trump and Hillary are equal standing as far of this because nothing's official and it's all hearsay from the victims.

Why do u believe one victim over the other?

 

Now I'll answer. Because u want Hillary to win and are overlooking and not getting the same disgust because ur piece of **** running for president u want to win. It's the same for people who are behind wanting the piece of **** Trump to win.

So you when u bring up NOTHING but bad stuff about Trump and say good things about Hillary, people who are for Trump are feeling the same thing when they post something against Hillary that u overlook and don't take to heart like u would for Trump.

That's where the election gotten to, both candidates are pieces of **** and when one try's not to look like what they are, the other side is quickly there to remind what a piece of **** they are if u get any crazy ideas lol. It's vice versa.

We all lose with this election because most of the country is stuck in the more of **** and won't get out and wash it off.

 

 

 

Please explain to me how on earth this is gonna impact the average American woman. 

Well since you asked and you unintentionally made  a point that confirms you have absolutely no idea or understanding of what gender equality is or more importantly why the majority of women in the USA are offended by Trump

 

Its not what Trump may do, its how he has spoken about women and how he has been very condescending about women on  a  number of levels. Thats the issue, its like if you were gay and Trump said  " homosexuality is an aberration "  you would be  irritated and annoyed   

 

 

Anyone else love it when a South African dude that buys prostitutes tries to tell an American he has no idea why women in the USA are offended by Trump?

 

No **** Sherlock, the stuff he says is offensive. But the political spin that he's dangerous to women from a political stance is absolute fiction. He's no more damaging than the average Republican because there's a CLEAR limitation in how far he can push such issues. That's my point.

 

If they really want a political spin that has actual merit to it, they should've gone with how dangerous he is to anyone that's brown. If tomorrow Trump said he wants to go back to the days where women can't vote, USA will tell him to shove it up his ass. If tomorrow Trump says he wants to kick all the Mexicans out, yes, sadly there's a decent chunk of idiots in the USA that would become openly hostile towards anyone brown, thinking they need to personally force them out. Women are not in danger, they just have to put up with some half-wit talking to them like garbage, which I got news for you, they'll survive. If my choice is between some idiot who says mean words to women and someone who undermines the democratic process as we know it, sad day for you women, but I have faith you'll all survive four years of mean words. There's plenty of other issues you're welcome to discuss where that dude falls flat on his face, but I'm saying the misogyny, while clear as day, has no meaningful political ramnifications.

 

 

 

I love it how you play the "I am an American "  card as if that makes your comments accurate or credible

 

Strippers are not the same as hookers and you have to pay them...you dont think they take there clothes off because they enjoy it?

 

And you still dont seem to understand the issues with Trump. He has been much more divisive and controversial than any other Republican candidate. I'm surprised this needs to be pointed out .....

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

 

 

 

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:

 

 

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," [Putnam] writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservativism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

 

"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

 

 

That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.

 

 

Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.

 

 

The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more?

 

Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline.

[Longknife]

 

I love it how you play the "I am an American "  card as if that makes your comments accurate or credible

 

Strippers are not the same as hookers and you have to pay them...you dont think they take there clothes off because they enjoy it?

 

And you still dont seem to understand the issues with Trump. He has been much more divisive and controversial than any other Republican candidate. I'm surprised this needs to be pointed out .....

 

 

Yes Bruce, it does matter. When you are lecturing someone from a certain culture that you've never been a part of and trying to educate them on how they don't understand a part of that culture, it kinda makes you look like an idiot. Sure enough, you just spewed the most obvious "helpful info" ever at me that any toddler could figure out. Gee Bruce, really?!? Women in America are offended when someone makes sexist remarks?! Well golly gee, I didn't know! Let me go fetch my notepad so I can take notes on women from my own culture!!

 

Also:

 

 

and you unintentionally made  a point that confirms you have absolutely no idea or understanding of what gender equality is

 

 

And you still dont seem to understand the issues with Trump. He has been much more divisive and controversial than any other Republican candidate.

 

Do you make points or do you just make worthless empty statements?

 

I'll trust you on the lecture about the difference between Strippers and Hookers though. After all, you're the local expert in that field here on the Obsidian forums.

[Gromnir]

 

Well, OK, assuming she was actually told this by a credible person and didn't just make it up.

 

 

The victim says that was not how she behaved.  Hillary's affidavit is her swearing to the court she was told those things, so either she was told those things (whether the person telling lied or not) or she lied to the court under oath (cue discussions of later Hillary activities, I'm sure! ).  Ultimately the motion never got reviewed in court (again as near as I can tell) so there doesn't appear to be any real determination in regards to veracity.

 

Regardless a defense attorney is legally able to challenge witnesses testimony and to test evidence on behalf of their client, so again while I don't like a lot of what Hillary has done in government in modern days, I can't fault her in this case for...well...being a defense attorney.

 

what people is ignorantly lambasting clinton for regarding kathy shelton is exact why rape shield laws were passed.  the case in question occurred two years previous to arkansas passing rape shield, so the terrible injustice done to shelton, when viewed from the pov o' 2016, were actual the norm.  clinton defended her client.  if she lied in an affidavit, it would be unethical and illegal, but proof o' such mendacity is lacking. regardless, the tragedy o' kathy shelton is not a criticism o' clinton but o' the system as it existed at the time.  

 

clinton laughing 'bout polygraph accuracy?  

 

this has been a non-issue for a long time.    "true-believer" defense attorneys is common, but even so, successful defending folks one knows is guilty o' terrible crimes has gotta take a kinda toll.  is more than a few alcoholic defense attorneys. 'mongst criminal defense attorneys, black humor is even more common than cirrhosis  o' the liver.  anonymous tips that lead to capture of _______?  is a dirty secret o' the defense bar that a considerable number o' those anonymous tips come from defense attorneys.  'less one is a true psychotic, you gotta find a way to laugh at the perversity o' the system.  Gromnir ain't even a criminal defense attorney, and am shuddering to think how insensitive some o' our conversations held 'mongst peers is gonna sound to the layperson.

 

as an aside, we will never do family law.  however bad is criminal law on the psyche o' the attorney, family law is even more taxing.  the atrocities (petit and major) people is capable o' committing 'gainst former/current loved ones is genuine soul crushing. being an advocate for people with so much rage, particular when children becomes the ultimate prize o' the battle 'tween monsters, is the kinda thing we has seen destroy more than a couple good men and women.

 

as much as we dislike clinton, we cannot fault her for defending her client, and am reluctant to judge her for her poor choice o' jests even as such were cringeworthy.  'course we find her email defense to be straining credulity and her foreign policy record to be worthy o' a whole 'nother degree o' black humor... and her willingness to lie when confronted with unpleasant truths is almost pathological. 

 

...

 

'course when obama were recent talking 'bout how much he wants to see astronauts going to mars, we laughed at that too.  no President since clinton (bill) has done so much to hamstring the US space program that we couldn't help but think obama were doing a tommy flanagan kinda jest... oh, and this is likely a joke for which obama would like a mulligan.

 

 

*shrug*

 

this election should be a laugh-a-minute chuklefest.  'tween clinton and trump's seeming intentional faux pas one-upmanship, we should be having chronic sore ribs from laughing, but we ain't hardly laughing.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 13, 2016 by Gromnir

[Longknife]

While we're on the subject, what are the laws regarding defense attorneys and knowing your client is guilty in the USA?

In Germany if you know he's guilty, you can't (or shouldn't, of course, given how ruthless top level lawyers are) argue points that you know aren't true or overtly state things that aren't true, so if you're defending a murderer and you know he did it, you cannot state he didn't do it and you're expected to provide him with a fair defense, but you must tip-toe around that. "It would be incredibly difficult for my client to manage to be at the scene of the crime" or "my client has difficulty aiming with a gun" rather than "my client was not at the scene of the crime" or "my client would never have been able to shoot the victim" and all that jazz.

 

In the UK, they cannot defend someone they know is guilty, at least if what Germany has taught me about UK law is correct. If a murderer confesses to the lawyer, he must rat him out.

In USA...?

[Gfted1]

In the UK, they cannot defend someone they know is guilty, at least if what Germany has taught me about UK law is correct. If a murderer confesses to the lawyer, he must rat him out.

 

In USA...?

 

Attorney-client privilege.

[Gromnir]

While we're on the subject, what are the laws regarding defense attorneys and knowing your client is guilty in the USA?

 

In Germany if you know he's guilty, you can't (or shouldn't, of course, given how ruthless top level lawyers are) argue points that you know aren't true or overtly state things that aren't true, so if you're defending a murderer and you know he did it, you cannot state he didn't do it and you're expected to provide him with a fair defense, but you must tip-toe around that. "It would be incredibly difficult for my client to manage to be at the scene of the crime" or "my client has difficulty aiming with a gun" rather than "my client was not at the scene of the crime" or "my client would never have been able to shoot the victim" and all that jazz.

 

In the UK, they cannot defend someone they know is guilty, at least if what Germany has taught me about UK law is correct. If a murderer confesses to the lawyer, he must rat him out.

 

In USA...?

https://www.learner.org/resources/series81.html#

 

is good stuff, and you get your answer(s) in video #2... and am thinking #8 as well.

 

lawyer can't lie or put client on stand knowing that they will lie, but there is practical ways to deal with those limitations. defend guilty is not a problem.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps pay particular attention to mr. neal remarks... am thinking he gets involved at 24:40 o' video 2

Edited October 13, 2016 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

 

 

Do you make points or do you just make worthless empty statements?

 

I'll trust you on the lecture about the difference between Strippers and Hookers though. After all, you're the local expert in that field here on the Obsidian forums.

 

I make worthless empty statements of course  

 

Thanks for the compliment but I'm no expert on the difference between a stripper and a hooker....I would assume the difference would be obvious?

[Longknife]

 

In the UK, they cannot defend someone they know is guilty, at least if what Germany has taught me about UK law is correct. If a murderer confesses to the lawyer, he must rat him out.

 

In USA...?

 

Attorney-client privilege.

 

 

 

 

While we're on the subject, what are the laws regarding defense attorneys and knowing your client is guilty in the USA?

 

In Germany if you know he's guilty, you can't (or shouldn't, of course, given how ruthless top level lawyers are) argue points that you know aren't true or overtly state things that aren't true, so if you're defending a murderer and you know he did it, you cannot state he didn't do it and you're expected to provide him with a fair defense, but you must tip-toe around that. "It would be incredibly difficult for my client to manage to be at the scene of the crime" or "my client has difficulty aiming with a gun" rather than "my client was not at the scene of the crime" or "my client would never have been able to shoot the victim" and all that jazz.

 

In the UK, they cannot defend someone they know is guilty, at least if what Germany has taught me about UK law is correct. If a murderer confesses to the lawyer, he must rat him out.

 

In USA...?

https://www.learner.org/resources/series81.html#

 

is good stuff, and you get your answer(s) in video #2... and am thinking #8 as well.

 

lawyer can't lie or put client on stand knowing that they will lie, but there is practical ways to deal with those limitations. defend guilty is not a problem.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Thanks, was just curious anyways. I've sadly seen enough legal activity to know that of course there's plenty of lawyers that don't uphold to those ethics codes if they know they can get away with it. Father's lawyers taught me a harsh lesson in that when the law firm I was working for at the time assured me my uncle had a clear cut case against him, little did they know my father is only generous with money when it comes to hiring lawyers. (and sounds like my uncle's wasn't so great either)

Edited October 13, 2016 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

George Bush the younger also made the claim that it is time to colonize Mars.

 

It must be a second term thing.

[Gromnir]

George Bush the younger also made the claim that it is time to colonize Mars.

 

It must be a second term thing.

george bush actual pushed Congress to increase the nasa budget and encouraged nasa to get us back to the moon, unmanned and manned, with target dates which have already elapsed.  return to moon were a reasonable first step to going to mars.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Meshugger]

 

George Bush the younger also made the claim that it is time to colonize Mars.

 

It must be a second term thing.

george bush actual pushed Congress to increase the nasa budget and encouraged nasa to get us back to the moon, unmanned and manned, with target dates which have already elapsed.  return to moon were a reasonable first step to going to mars.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Oh, i do not fault him for doing that. It actually deserves praise in itself. I just find it interesting that once again it gets pushed to the limelight by the end of the second term by the next president.

 

Perhaps it is not a sexy agenda during election times.

[Gromnir]

 

 

George Bush the younger also made the claim that it is time to colonize Mars.

 

It must be a second term thing.

george bush actual pushed Congress to increase the nasa budget and encouraged nasa to get us back to the moon, unmanned and manned, with target dates which have already elapsed.  return to moon were a reasonable first step to going to mars.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Oh, i do not fault him for doing that. It actually deserves praise in itself. I just find it interesting that once again it gets pushed to the limelight by the end of the second term by the next president.

 

Perhaps it is not a sexy agenda during election times.

 

january 2004.  not election time for bush.  not when it were too late to do anything.  not after he slashed and burned nasa for two terms.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 13, 2016 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

 

2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

 

 

 

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:

 

 

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," [Putnam] writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

 

"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

 

 

That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.

 

 

Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.

 

 

The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more?

 

Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline.

 

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed heterogeneity is advantageous for social cohesion. I pointed out that the very researcher you cite to support your idiocy believes that the answer doesn't lie in embracing "ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism".

 

As for skipping points, I think it's probably for the better if we don't touch your rant on how Hillary "has no signs of strength, vitality and lucidity", as it is exactly the kind of "feelz before realz" thinking you're keen to decry as irrational when it suits you. There is a reason the halo effect (and its inverse, charmingly named "the horns effect", as I've learned recently) is acknowledged as a form of cognitive bias, not "a reliable method by which we should be selecting our leaders". The part where you ruminate on how "leadership reflects the currents of the masses", while at the same time managing to paint "virtuous" leaders as exemplars without whom society inevitably falls into decline is just utterly incoherent, which is kind of an impressive feat, given that you're practically ripping off Plato and Confucius here, who might have had terrible ideas, but at least managed to phrase those in a not completely self-contradictory fashion.

 

Your third point has a glimmer of rational thought in it (TPP is bad news), but then once again you descend into howling insanity with "certain groups climb the ladder faster due to having better inner cohesion" (gee whiz, and here I thought having wealth and connections was the fast-track to the top, but no, apparently any group with any socio-economic background can just saunter right there if they just have enough inner cohesion!), and then you top it off with...whatever you're trying to get at with the bit about armed uprisings of people who feel the system is rigged against them. At this point, I can't even follow.