Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

laripu

Why we have Trump

Recommended Posts

 

Wow! A new all-time new low on LO.

 

When lawyers act as public defenders—giving those without economic means legal representation—they don't get to chose who they defend.

 

No kidding. One of my best friends went to Harvard Law. She still had choices.

 

She could have quit. :huh: It's not like a Yale grad couldn't have found another job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No kidding. One of my best friends went to Harvard Law. She still had choices.

 

She could have quit. :huh: It's not like a Yale grad couldn't have found another job.

 

She could have quit, but then a defendant without economic means would have lost his legal representation.

 

So she made the honorable decision. Demagogues don't know much about that sort of thing.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to butt in here, okay, wait, no I don't.

 

This is getting us nowhere.

 

Bullshit like this is why we have Trump.

 

Thing is, the progressive liberal and liberal left movement is growing. It woke under Obama, and then most of it was subsumed in either apathy or weary acceptance that at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush. (There are many things I like about Obama, but as a true progressive his record was spotty.) Others had hope, but saw it crushed by the Democratic Congressional establishment who, in the first two years of Obama's presidency, failed and failed and failed again to adequately support Obama's policies. Many of us saw the pre-annointing of HRC back in 2013-2014, sighed, and shook our heads. Clinton failed to appeal to a huge swath of people for a huge number of reasons that have nothing to do with Republican propaganda. And then, Sanders arrived. He did not incite or cause anger, (save for, perhaps, an unbalanced fringe that will do something whackadoodle-shit no matter what), but he did *focus* it, redirect it, and use it as fuel for a purpose. No, he didn't win, but I've gone over ad nauseum why he didn't. Had things been *fair* for all candidates, yes, Sanders might still have lost. But it would have been less likely.

 

Making the argument about Bernie is just a deflection by one person who apparently does not want to admit to the inherent flaws in the DNC, the Democratic party establishment, media coverage, the way we do primaries and over all, HRC herself that led to the loss to Trump. We need to make certain that candidates are not tone-deaf, and that they know how to appeal to people. One important qualification of a leader that seems to never get discussed is that a leader needs to be able to inspire others to follow.

 

I would suggest, quite honestly, that putting SpyCar on ignore would stop feeding the troll and would let us get back to the actual important discussion of how we take back our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to butt in here, okay, wait, no I don't.

 

This is getting us nowhere.

 

Bullshit like this is why we have Trump.

 

Thing is, the progressive liberal and liberal left movement is growing. It woke under Obama, and then most of it was subsumed in either apathy or weary acceptance that at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush. (There are many things I like about Obama, but as a true progressive his record was spotty.) Others had hope, but saw it crushed by the Democratic Congressional establishment who, in the first two years of Obama's presidency, failed and failed and failed again to adequately support Obama's policies. Many of us saw the pre-annointing of HRC back in 2013-2014, sighed, and shook our heads. Clinton failed to appeal to a huge swath of people for a huge number of reasons that have nothing to do with Republican propaganda. And then, Sanders arrived. He did not incite or cause anger, (save for, perhaps, an unbalanced fringe that will do something whackadoodle-shit no matter what), but he did *focus* it, redirect it, and use it as fuel for a purpose. No, he didn't win, but I've gone over ad nauseum why he didn't. Had things been *fair* for all candidates, yes, Sanders might still have lost. But it would have been less likely.

 

Making the argument about Bernie is just a deflection by one person who apparently does not want to admit to the inherent flaws in the DNC, the Democratic party establishment, media coverage, the way we do primaries and over all, HRC herself that led to the loss to Trump. We need to make certain that candidates are not tone-deaf, and that they know how to appeal to people. One important qualification of a leader that seems to never get discussed is that a leader needs to be able to inspire others to follow.

 

I would suggest, quite honestly, that putting SpyCar on ignore would stop feeding the troll and would let us get back to the actual important discussion of how we take back our government.

 

Well said,

+5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to butt in here, okay, wait, no I don't.

 

This is getting us nowhere.

 

Bullshit like this is why we have Trump.

 

Thing is, the progressive liberal and liberal left movement is growing. It woke under Obama, and then most of it was subsumed in either apathy or weary acceptance that at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush. (There are many things I like about Obama, but as a true progressive his record was spotty.) Others had hope, but saw it crushed by the Democratic Congressional establishment who, in the first two years of Obama's presidency, failed and failed and failed again to adequately support Obama's policies. Many of us saw the pre-annointing of HRC back in 2013-2014, sighed, and shook our heads. Clinton failed to appeal to a huge swath of people for a huge number of reasons that have nothing to do with Republican propaganda. And then, Sanders arrived. He did not incite or cause anger, (save for, perhaps, an unbalanced fringe that will do something whackadoodle-shit no matter what), but he did *focus* it, redirect it, and use it as fuel for a purpose. No, he didn't win, but I've gone over ad nauseum why he didn't. Had things been *fair* for all candidates, yes, Sanders might still have lost. But it would have been less likely.

 

Making the argument about Bernie is just a deflection by one person who apparently does not want to admit to the inherent flaws in the DNC, the Democratic party establishment, media coverage, the way we do primaries and over all, HRC herself that led to the loss to Trump. We need to make certain that candidates are not tone-deaf, and that they know how to appeal to people. One important qualification of a leader that seems to never get discussed is that a leader needs to be able to inspire others to follow.

 

I would suggest, quite honestly, that putting SpyCar on ignore would stop feeding the troll and would let us get back to the actual important discussion of how we take back our government.

 

 

Thanks for having the honesty to admit that Bernie Sanders focused and redirected anger as a fuel for his political purposes.

 

That acknowledgment goes a long way toward identifying the problem inherent in his political movement.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No kidding. One of my best friends went to Harvard Law. She still had choices.

 

She could have quit. :huh: It's not like a Yale grad couldn't have found another job.

 

Ahh, so you're of the opinion that not everyone deserves a competent defense? Are you sure you belong in the Liberals only forum, or that you have any business calling yourself a progressive?

 

First of all -- being a female lawyer in the 70's certainly isn't as easy as being a lawyer today. How well do you think quitting would work out for her? Not nearly as well as you seem to think it would. Women made up just 4% of lawyers in 1970. They don't have near the opportunities women have had since the 80's and 90's.

 

Second of all -- She was appointed as his attorney. If she quit--how does that look to law firms? She's not only a woman, but one who quit on someone she was appointed to defend?

 

Thirdly--Her commitment to due process is admirable, not condemnable. Every accused person has a right to a competent defense. Thinking otherwise is anti-liberal.

 

This is a big part of why we lost. Some progressives want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Hillary was far from the perfect candidate, but on a national scale you're not going to get a win from progressives. It's why Jill Stein is nothing more than a great big JOKE. You can't just throw a progressive President in there, and expect results. The change has to come at the local level--Bernie Sanders understands this. Jill Stein doesn't. And why would she? She's more interested in running for President every four years than effecting any real change. And let's not forget that when she did talk policy, she often had no idea what she was talking about. And her running mate was a total joke too. He called Bernie Sanders a 'white supremacist'. But hey! At least he never worked as a public defender who upheld due process for even the people we don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ahh, so you're of the opinion that not everyone deserves a competent defense? Are you sure you belong in the Liberals only forum, or that you have any business calling yourself a progressive?

 

First of all -- being a female lawyer in the 70's certainly isn't as easy as being a lawyer today. How well do you think quitting would work out for her? Not nearly as well as you seem to think it would. Women made up just 4% of lawyers in 1970. They don't have near the opportunities women have had since the 80's and 90's.

 

Second of all -- She was appointed as his attorney. If she quit--how does that look to law firms? She's not only a woman, but one who quit on someone she was appointed to defend?

 

Thirdly--Her commitment to due process is admirable, not condemnable. Every accused person has a right to a competent defense. Thinking otherwise is anti-liberal.

No, that's not my stance at all. I believe everyone deserves a competent defense. However, a "competent defense" certainly doesn't have to come from Yale graduates with presidential aspirations (who claim to "love children"). I'd bet good money there were other attorneys available to take this case. Some of the stories I've read indicated that Hillary said, years later, she believed before the trial that the guy was guilty. :huh: If that is true.....wtf?

 

This is similar, to me, with Hillary claiming to care about the working class and raising lower class wages. Yet, as a young lawyer for Walmart, Clinton did a LOT of union busting which financially crippled Walmart employees (while helping the huge corporation). This kind of stuff is why I scoff at the notion that she gives a crap about low wage workers at all. In the end, she sides with the big corporation (and the low wages).

 

Lawyers do what lawyers do - they represent their clients. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is taking jobs like the two above, then claiming to "love children" or "want to help those with low-paying jobs." Sure you do, Hill. Until your career or paycheck come into play.

 

I'm guessing that's what she meant when she stated she had a "public" and "private" opinion on most issues. :rolleyes;

 

 

This is a big part of why we lost. Some progressives want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Hillary was far from the perfect candidate, but on a national scale you're not going to get a win from progressives. It's why Jill Stein is nothing more than a great big JOKE. You can't just throw a progressive President in there, and expect results. The change has to come at the local level--Bernie Sanders understands this. Jill Stein doesn't. And why would she? She's more interested in running for President every four years than effecting any real change. And let's not forget that when she did talk policy, she often had no idea what she was talking about. And her running mate was a total joke too. He called Bernie Sanders a 'white supremacist'. But hey! At least he never worked as a public defender who upheld due process for even the people we don't like.

I didn't vote for Jill Stein. She was a sub-par candidate.

 

I disagree about Hillary. I think she would have been an experienced but self-serving president. I would never vote for her - in fact, I've seen her as a flip-flopping, plutocratic opportunist for decades. I stated a long time ago that if she won the nomination, I wouldn't vote for her. I stood by my conscience, which I'm comfortable with. We should all vote our conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not my stance at all. I believe everyone deserves a competent defense. However, a "competent defense" certainly doesn't have to come from Yale graduates with presidential aspirations (who claim to "love children"). I'd bet good money there were other attorneys available to take this case. Some of the stories I've read indicated that Hillary said, years later, she believed before the trial that the guy was guilty. :huh: If that is true.....wtf?

 

This is similar, to me, with Hillary claiming to care about the working class and raising lower class wages. Yet, as a young lawyer for Walmart, Clinton did a LOT of union busting which financially crippled Walmart employees (while helping the huge corporation). This kind of stuff is why I scoff at the notion that she gives a crap about low wage workers at all. In the end, she sides with the big corporation (and the low wages).

 

Lawyers do what lawyers do - they represent their clients. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is taking jobs like the two above, then claiming to "love children" or "want to help those with low-paying jobs." Sure you do, Hill. Until your career or paycheck come into play.

 

I'm guessing that's what she meant when she stated she had a "public" and "private" opinion on most issues. :rolleyes;

 

 

I didn't vote for Jill Stein. She was a sub-par candidate.

 

I disagree about Hillary. I think she would have been an experienced but self-serving president. I would never vote for her - in fact, I've seen her as a flip-flopping, plutocratic opportunist for decades. I stated a long time ago that if she won the nomination, I wouldn't vote for her. I stood by my conscience, which I'm comfortable with. We should all vote our conscience.

 

In this country RR, even people who are guilty of crimes are entitled to a competent legal defense. You might prefer a system while those who are presumed guilty are just taken out and shot, or thrown into gulags, but that's not a liberal position. Nor is leaving defendants with an incompetent council because a public defender believes his or her client is guilty and abandons a client's defense.

 

You illiberalism is showing. I'm genuinely shocked.

 

You've completely misrepresented HRC's time at Walmart where she pushed—within the confines of her job—for more liberal policies for Walmart workers.

 

HRC used her legal degree to advance children's issues, as a lawyer in the field for the Children's Defence fund, drafting legislation, and starting her own child protection organization in Arkansas, all while Bernie Sanders was off at his Stalinist Indoctrination camp, or back in the states living on the dole, stealing electricity, writing rape fantasies, being a dead-beat dad, and supporting totalitarians.

 

You have a very strange idea about which of these two is self-serving.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In this country RR, even people who are guilty of crimes are entitled to a competent legal defense. You might prefer a system while those who are presumed guilty are just taken out and shot, or thrown into gulags, but that's not a liberal position. Nor is leaving defendants with an incompetent council because a public defender believes his or her client is guilty and abandons a client's defense.

 

You illiberalism is showing. I'm genuinely shocked.

 

You should be shocked, because you're totally misrepresenting my post. You don't understand my stance at all. Again, had HRC withdrawn from the case, would that have meant no "competent" attorneys would have been available to step in?

 

I stated clearly everyone deserves a good defense. That's what lawyers do. However don't be a hypocrite and say you're "fighting for children and women" when you made a bunch of money defending a violent predator who hurts women and children. Say it loud and proud: Yes, I'm a good attorney who has defend the poor, including child rapists. End of statement.

 

At Walmart, Hillary fought to bust up unions to save Walmart money. Please don't deny that because there are a zillion sources out there who say otherwise.

 

 

 

 

You've completely misrepresented HRC's time at Walmart where she pushed—within the confines of her job—for more liberal policies for Walmart workers.

HRC used her legal degree to advance children's issues, as a lawyer in the field for the Children's Defence fund, drafting legislation, and starting her own child protection organization in Arkansas, [off-topic Bernie derangement syndrome rant deleted]

Bill

 

"Within the confines of her job?" :lol: Do you mean, as long as the peeps don't get all uppity and want to actually make enough money to pay their bills (or want improvements to their benefit package)? Dude, unions fight for better pay and working conditions for employees. Hillary worked to bust up those unions (and made a lot of money doing so). You don't see that as hypocritical, at the very least?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You should be shocked, because you're totally misrepresenting my post. You don't understand my stance at all. Again, had HRC withdrawn from the case, would that have meant no "competent" attorneys would have been available to step in?

 

I stated clearly everyone deserves a good defense. That's what lawyers do. However don't be a hypocrite and say you're "fighting for children and women" when you made a bunch of money defending a violent predator who hurts women and children. Say it loud and proud: Yes, I'm a good attorney who has defend the poor, including child rapists. End of statement.

 

At Walmart, Hillary fought to bust up unions to save Walmart money. Please don't deny that because there are a zillion sources out there who say otherwise.

 

 

 

"Within the confines of her job?" :lol: Do you mean, as long as the peeps don't get all uppity and want to actually make enough money to pay their bills (or want improvements to their benefit package)? Dude, unions fight for better pay and working conditions for employees. Hillary worked to bust up those unions (and made a lot of money doing so). You don't see that as hypocritical, at the very least?

 

 

 

 

A basic question of ethics—and one you surely fail to understand—is what if everyone behaved the way I propose to act? What then?

 

Like what happens if everyone, or a small enough number to swing an election, fails to vote in a contest where a fascist is in a position to win?

 

If public defenders all bailed on clients out of fear they would get mau-maued for giving an indigent defendant legal representation we'd live in a less just society.

 

What you are advocating is purely unethical and anti-liberal and regressive.

 

You are repeating false claims about HRCs time at Walmart. Simply untrue.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A basic question of ethics—and one you surely fail to understand—is what if everyone behaved the way I propose to act? What then?

 

Like what happens if everyone, or a small enough number to swing an election, fails to vote in an election where a fascist is in a position to win?

 

Then it should serve as a lesson that a more universally preferred/trusted candidate is needed. I've said it many times - gone are the days people are just going to vote for (what they see as) the lesser of two evils. To me, that means choosing between a bad candidate and a horrific candidate. I don't want either!! I have a right to vote my conscience. I'm not a Democrat; I'm a registered Independent.

 

 

If public defenders all bailed on clients out of fear they would get mau-maued for giving an indigent defendant legal representation we'd live in a less just society. What you are advocating is purely unethical and anti-liberal and regressive.

You're misinterpreting my stance. Again. Lawyers defend their clients, regardless of their guilt. ALL public defenders aren't going to bail on their cases. Just don't spout that you "love and defend children" in one breath, then defend a psychopath in the next.

 

 

You are repeating false claims about HRCs time at Walmart. Simply untrue.

Bill

So Hillary DIDN'T help bust up unions at Walmart? Please post a source that shows she instead helped people attain higher wages and better benefits (and refused to bust up unions)? I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then it should serve as a lesson that a more universally preferred/trusted candidate is needed. I've said it many times - gone are the days people are just going to vote for (what they see as) the lesser of two evils. To me, that means choosing between a bad candidate and a horrific candidate. I don't want either!! I have a right to vote my conscience. I'm not a Democrat; I'm a registered Independent.

 

 

You're misinterpreting my stance. Again. Lawyers defend their clients, regardless of their guilt. ALL public defenders aren't going to bail on their cases. Just don't spout that you "love and defend children" in one breath, then defend a psychopath in the next.

 

 

So Hillary DIDN'T help bust up unions at Walmart? Please post a source that shows she instead helped people attain higher wages and better benefits (and refused to bust up unions)? I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong.

 

We live in a deeply divided society where finding a universally admired candidate is a pipe-dream. Realists need to accept they sometimes need to make compromises and chose the best between available options. Democrats clearly did not universally support, or even prefer, Bernie Sanders or he would have been the nominee (instead of trailing by 3 million votes).

 

You are welcome to be an Independent, but then please keep your nose out of the Democratic party and its future direction. We Democrats can handle it ourselves.

 

You still don't get that the ethical duty of lawyers working a public defenders is to defend their clients. Even when those clients are accused of terrible crimes. John Adams famously defended British troops who fired on Colonial protestors. That did not make Adams an enemy of the revolution, but a liberal who understood justice demands lawyers who will defend the unpopular.

 

I remain shocked by your anti-liberal attitudes. It is becoming more clear why you backed the demogogue in the primary race.

 

No, HRC did not bust unions during her time at Walmart. Walmart was (and is) a company that actively tries to stop unionizing activities in its stores, that is true. It is also true that HRC was not going to swing the board (where she was the most junior member) towards being pro-union, so she pushed for progress on issues where she knew she could make a difference such as advocating for women in the company (where her work lead to increased women in management) and to push for positive changes in the company's environmental policies.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We live in a deeply divided society where finding a universally admired candidate is a pipe-dream. Realists need to accept they sometimes need to make compromises and chose the best between available options.

I don't compromise. Either they're (what I deem to be) a solid candidate or they don't receive my vote.

 

Democrats clearly did not universally support, or even prefer, Bernie Sanders or he would have been the nominee

That's debatable. But, still, I was willing to vote for someone other than Bernie. For example, had Joe Biden dropped his name into the mix, I'd have no problem voting for Joe. However I wouldn't vote for Hillary if dragged to the polls by force. If the party chose to nominate her (and they did), they lost my vote in the process. They also lost millions of other votes, too.

Instead of paying attention to the warnings, MSNBC and CNN just started putting out dumbass polls stating that 95% were going to fall in line and vote for Hillary in time. :huh: That did not happen. The DNC should have listened to us. We're not going to just "fall in line."

 

You are welcome to be an Independent, but then please keep your nose out of the Democratic party and its future direction.

Well, damn. Thank you for that. So if I'm "free to be an independent," why in bloody hell have you been whining at me for months for not voting for HRC? I'm not going to vote for candidates I don't want in office. Not now, not ever.

 

We Democrats can handle it ourselves.

Yeah, you're doing an awesome job. :huh:

 

You still don't get that the ethical duty of lawyers working a public defenders is to defend their clients. Even when those clients are accused of terrible crimes. John Adams famously defended British troops who fired on Colonial protestors. That did not make Adams an enemy of the revolution, but a liberal who understood justice demands lawyers who will defend the unpopular.

As I stated before, I understand that perfectly. So....why doesn't she openly discuss her days as a defense attorney and talk about the predators she defended, letting people know they deserve the very best defense? Oddly, she never mentions those cases. If she's doing the noble thing, why the silence on the matter? Why, Bill?

 

I remain shocked by your anti-liberal attitudes.

My attitudes are liberal and consistent. You're not the decider on who is and is not liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's debatable. But, still, I was willing to vote for someone other than Bernie. For example, had Joe Biden dropped his name into the mix, I'd have no problem voting for Joe. However I wouldn't vote for Hillary if dragged to the polls by force. If the party chose to nominate her (and they did), they lost my vote in the process. They also lost millions of other votes, too.

Instead of paying attention to the warnings, MSNBC and CNN just started putting out dumbass polls stating that 95% were going to fall in line and vote for Hillary in time. :huh: That did not happen. The DNC should have listened to us. We're not going to just "fall in line."

 

Well, damn. Thank you for that. So if I'm "free to be an independent," why in bloody hell have you been whining at me for months for not voting for HRC? I'm not going to vote for candidates I don't want in office. Not now, not ever.

 

Yeah, you're doing an awesome job. :huh:

 

As I stated before, I understand that perfectly. So....why doesn't she openly discuss her days as a defense attorney and talk about the predators she defended, letting people know they deserve the very best defense? Oddly, she never mentions those cases. If she's doing the noble thing, why the silence on the matter? Why, Bill?

 

My attitudes are liberal and consistent. You're not the decider on who is and is not liberal.

 

 

Your attitudes are constant, but they are not liberal. You've described yourself as a "far-leftist" and that looks like a correct assessment from where I sit.

 

Demagoguing HRC for defending accused criminals in her role as a public defender is a deeply anti-liberal position.

 

If HRC has been Bernie Sanders' public defender when he stole electricity, it would not have made Hillary pro-theft.

 

Had she defended him for being a dead-beat dad, it would not have made her in favor of a father leaving his love-child and the child's mother in the lurch.

 

 

Her victory over Bernie Sanders isn't debatable. Nor is it debatable that because people like you (who claim to be "liberals", at least when it suits you) didn't vote that we not have president Trump instead of a good liberal like Hillary Clinton. She's the real deal.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't compromise. Either they're (what I deem to be) a solid candidate or they don't receive my vote.

 

That's debatable. But, still, I was willing to vote for someone other than Bernie. For example, had Joe Biden dropped his name into the mix, I'd have no problem voting for Joe. However I wouldn't vote for Hillary if dragged to the polls by force. If the party chose to nominate her (and they did), they lost my vote in the process. They also lost millions of other votes, too.

Instead of paying attention to the warnings, MSNBC and CNN just started putting out dumbass polls stating that 95% were going to fall in line and vote for Hillary in time. :huh: That did not happen. The DNC should have listened to us. We're not going to just "fall in line."

 

Well, damn. Thank you for that. So if I'm "free to be an independent," why in bloody hell have you been whining at me for months for not voting for HRC? I'm not going to vote for candidates I don't want in office. Not now, not ever.

 

Yeah, you're doing an awesome job. :huh:

 

As I stated before, I understand that perfectly. So....why doesn't she openly discuss her days as a defense attorney and talk about the predators she defended, letting people know they deserve the very best defense? Oddly, she never mentions those cases. If she's doing the noble thing, why the silence on the matter? Why, Bill?

 

My attitudes are liberal and consistent. You're not the decider on who is and is not liberal.

 

 

5 Gold Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your attitudes are constant, but they are not liberal. You've described yourself as a "far-leftist" and that looks like a correct assessment from where I sit.

 

Demagoguing HRC for defending accused criminals in her role as a public defender is a deeply anti-liberal position.

 

If HRC has been Bernie Sanders' public defender when he stole electricity, it would not have made Hillary pro-theft.

 

Had she defended him for being a dead-beat dad, it would not have made her in favor of a father leaving his love-child and the child's mother in the lurch.

 

 

Her victory over Bernie Sanders isn't debatable. Nor is it debatable that because people like you (who claim to be "liberals", at least when it suits you) didn't vote that we not have president Trump instead of a good liberal like Hillary Clinton. She's the real deal.

 

Bill

 

See you saying that Bernie isn't a better liberal is totally wrong in the sense that Bernie has been working for the people his entire life and I didn't see her getting arrested in the 60s protesting for civil rights. The term liberal is changing and Bernie is the new term in my eyes as a actual liberal not someone who takes corporate money and gives speeches to wall street for hundreds of thousands of dollars the Democratic party is changing for the good from the Hillary's of the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not my stance at all. I believe everyone deserves a competent defense. However, a "competent defense" certainly doesn't have to come from Yale graduates with presidential aspirations (who claim to "love children"). I'd bet good money there were other attorneys available to take this case. Some of the stories I've read indicated that Hillary said, years later, she believed before the trial that the guy was guilty. :huh: If that is true.....wtf?

 

This is similar, to me, with Hillary claiming to care about the working class and raising lower class wages. Yet, as a young lawyer for Walmart, Clinton did a LOT of union busting which financially crippled Walmart employees (while helping the huge corporation). This kind of stuff is why I scoff at the notion that she gives a crap about low wage workers at all. In the end, she sides with the big corporation (and the low wages).

 

Lawyers do what lawyers do - they represent their clients. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is taking jobs like the two above, then claiming to "love children" or "want to help those with low-paying jobs." Sure you do, Hill. Until your career or paycheck come into play.

 

I'm guessing that's what she meant when she stated she had a "public" and "private" opinion on most issues. :rolleyes;

 

 

I didn't vote for Jill Stein. She was a sub-par candidate.

 

I disagree about Hillary. I think she would have been an experienced but self-serving president. I would never vote for her - in fact, I've seen her as a flip-flopping, plutocratic opportunist for decades. I stated a long time ago that if she won the nomination, I wouldn't vote for her. I stood by my conscience, which I'm comfortable with. We should all vote our conscience.

Apparently you don't think they deserve a competent defense. Otherwise you wouldn't be attacking someone acting as a public defender for acting as a public defender. And you don't seem to understand what it would have done to her career--especially seeing as she was a woman in the 70's.

 

People like you are exactly why we have Donald Trump in the white house. And it's why LGBT people will have their rights put in danger, and their livelihoods. It's why public schools will be put in danger. A woman's right to choose will be in danger. Healthcare too. Everything he does is on those liberals who refused to vote because Hillary wasn't their ideal candidate. I suppose you can live with everything Donald Trump does on your conscience better than you could Hillary Clinton. I know I couldn't. And yes, it's still on you, because you made a choice by NOT voting for Hillary. Your choice wasn't Donald Trump, but it might as well have been. Because it's the result that lead from your choice. You let the Republicans win. Apparently you're okay with what Trump is doing, because if you weren't, you'd have sucked it up and voted for Hillary. But Dems apparently can't do that. They didn't do it for Kerry against Bush, and they didn't do it for Hillary against Trump. In the end we throw the baby out with the bath water. We let psychopaths into the white house because our candidates just aren't good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you don't think they deserve a competent defense. Otherwise you wouldn't be attacking someone acting as a public defender for acting as a public defender. And you don't seem to understand what it would have done to her career--especially seeing as she was a woman in the 70's.

 

Apparently you didn't read my subsequent posts on the matter. I think everyone deserves a competent defense. I never once stated they didn't. My point is that it is hypocritical to claim that you "fight for women/children" and their causes.....and then go and defend a violent child rapist (because her job/career, etc).

 

During her speeches about criminal justice reform in her rallies, why didn't Hillary talk about everyone deserving a competent defense and illustrate that by detailing her defense of this child rapist? She doesn't talk about it at all all. If it's so damn noble and shit, why not? :huh:

 

I need candidates who "walk the walk." I don't vote for candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouth. I don't do vote shaming and I don't give a rat's ass who's running against them. Either they're a solid candidate or they're not.

 

 

 

People like you are exactly why we have Donald Trump in the white house. [continued vote shaming deleted]

Bullshit. I didn't vote for Trump and I haven't been a Democrat in close to 18 years. I have no party loyalty whatsoever. My loyalties lie with average Americans and their issues. The blame for this election lies directly with the DNC for nominating what many viewed as a dishonest, unlikable, out-of-touch candidate.

 

I'm 60 years old. I've spent too many years voting for the "lesser of two evils." I won't ever do it again, ever.

 

My vote is my own. You can dispense with the vote shaming; it has ZERO effect on me. Hillary Clinton was a wretched candidate and I would never vote for her. I've been open and consistent about that from the start. We need good candidates in office who will help the working class (not Goldman Sachs, wealthy donors, Washington insiders, or herself). Fuck that shit. Zero guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong RR. It is not hypocritical to spend years/decades working in the trenches fighting for women's and children's rights, while also representing clients without financial means as a public defender. Both these are noble acts.

 

I'm not easily shocked, but your illiberalism is shocking.

 

RR is right about not being a Democrat.

 

He has no sense of shame. That is his tragic flaw.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong RR. It is not hypocritical to spend years/decades working in the trenches fighting for women's and children's rights, while also representing clients without financial means as a public defender. Both these are noble acts.

 

I'm not easily shocked, but your illiberalism is shocking.

 

RR is right about not being a Democrat.

 

He has no sense of shame. That is his tragic flaw.

 

Bill

 

Man, you leaped on that post within seconds, didn't you? :huh: Obsessed much?

 

There's nothing for me to be ashamed of. Not a fucking thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man, you leaped on that post within seconds, didn't you? :huh: Obsessed much?

 

There's nothing for me to be ashamed of. Not a fucking thing.

 

Wrong. You just don't get it.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently you didn't read my subsequent posts on the matter. I think everyone deserves a competent defense. I never once stated they didn't. My point is that it is hypocritical to claim that you "fight for women/children" and their causes.....and then go and defend a violent child rapist (because her job/career, etc).

 

During her speeches about criminal justice reform in her rallies, why didn't Hillary talk about everyone deserving a competent defense and illustrate that by detailing her defense of this child rapist? She doesn't talk about it at all all. If it's so damn noble and shit, why not? :huh:

 

I need candidates who "walk the walk." I don't vote for candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouth. I don't do vote shaming and I don't give a rat's ass who's running against them. Either they're a solid candidate or they're not.

 

 

Bullshit. I didn't vote for Trump and I haven't been a Democrat in close to 18 years. I have no party loyalty whatsoever. My loyalties lie with average Americans and their issues. The blame for this election lies directly with the DNC for nominating what many viewed as a dishonest, unlikable, out-of-touch candidate.

 

I'm 60 years old. I've spent too many years voting for the "lesser of two evils." I won't ever do it again, ever.

 

My vote is my own. You can dispense with the vote shaming; it has ZERO effect on me. Hillary Clinton was a wretched candidate and I would never vote for her. I've been open and consistent about that from the start. We need good candidates in office who will help the working class (not Goldman Sachs, wealthy donors, Washington insiders, or herself). Fuck that shit. Zero guilt.

It's not hypocritical at all. Everybody deserves a defense. Her actions show that she believes that, otherwise she would never have been a public defender (which is a trying and difficult job--and I"d know, I'm friends with an actual public defender who also happened to graduate from Yale). You keep saying "She could have turned the job down" and ignore how hard that would have been for her to do, especially as a woman in the 1970's.

 

I don't care if you have shame or not. It's still the fault of you and people like you that Donald Trump is in office. You want a 'good candidate', so you'll take the worse of two evils in hopes that next time they put up a 'good candidate' ignoring the fact that by losing-- the next time the left is more likely to shift more right to try to gain voters who... you know, actually vote. Instead of shifting left in hopes of getting the votes of people who are okay with a Trump presidency more than a Hillary Presidency. Not to mention undoing all the progress that has been made by the Obama administration. All so you can sit up there on your high horse and say "At least I didn't vote for Hillary!" while people lose their rights, their jobs, and their way of life.

 

Do you know why the Right never shifts to the left? Because their voters stand behind them no matter what. Until Republicans can't win simply by having an R next to their name, the left is going to continue shifting to the right, and getting into bed with corporations. Because they can't count on the left coming out to support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you know why the Right never shifts to the left? Because their voters stand behind them no matter what. Until Republicans can't win simply by having an R next to their name, the left is going to continue shifting to the right, and getting into bed with corporations. Because they can't count on the left coming out to support them.

 

See this is why we need to move more to the left and move on from the Hillary's of the party and continue with the Bernie's and the Elizabeth Warren's of the Party which will be the future of the party because we need to have politicians that fight for the people and not their donors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...