Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

An interesting angle is connected to trial lawyers, like Hillary, when when she got out of university. One thing trial lawyers need to be good at is jury selection and coaching their client to behave and say things that benefits the defense strategy. This extrapolates into the election process as trying to stack the audience with friendlies, when you speak to crowds; jury selection. A more favorable jury will make the strategy of the lawyer work better.

A businessman is different, since he goal is to sell product. He knows some people will like what he sells, and others will not. He will not try to sell to only people who like his product. Rather will spend more effort and resources trying to sell to those who do not like the product; expand the market. One can see this in Trump and Hillary rallies and how each deals with the press. Trump invite and sells his pitch to all. While Hillary jury selects and her handlers coach the media. I am not saying one is better than the other, but each profession approaches the same thing in different ways consistent with teachings of that profession.
 
Assad in Syria saw the writing on the wall; the mob would be allowed to kill him, next, since the US, Obama and Hillary would not protect him.
Why in the hell would anyone protect Assad, he's a monster! I'd be pissed if they did.
 
wellwisher said:
- - - . FOX news reports both Trumps miscues and Hillary scandals. - -
What that has meant in practice is that Fox reports Trump scandals as "miscues", and reports invented bullshit as Hillary "scandals".

And then CNN follows the Fox lead, and talks about "both sides" of this bad situation.
wellwisher said:
One can see this in Trump and Hillary rallies and how each deals with the press. Trump invite and sells his pitch to all. While Hillary jury selects and her handlers coach the media.
Trump has been putting a lot of effort into selecting his press, and banning those he doesn't like: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/
 
Last edited:
An interesting angle is connected to trial lawyers, like Hillary, when when she got out of university. One thing trial lawyers need to be good at is jury selection and coaching their client to behave and say things that benefits the defense strategy. This extrapolates into the election process as trying to stack the audience with friendlies, when you speak to crowds; jury selection. A more favorable jury will make the strategy of the lawyer work better.

A businessman is different, since he goal is to sell product. He knows some people will like what he sells, and others will not. He will not try to sell to only people who like his product. Rather will spend more effort and resources trying to sell to those who do not like the product; expand the market. One can see this in Trump and Hillary rallies and how each deals with the press. Trump invite and sells his pitch to all. While Hillary jury selects and her handlers coach the media. I am not saying one is better than the other, but each profession approaches the same thing in different ways consistent with teachings of that profession.
Well, as previously pointed out to you, businessmen have a lousy track record as presidents e.g. Baby Bush. On the other hand, some of our best presidents have been lawyers by training. It't that history thingy again. :)
 
Ok, well, here are 3
"Hillary Clinton claims to be the defender of women’s rights but when you look at her history, well …not so much. We’ve already presented how she treated Juanita Broaddrick who claimed she was raped by her husband, former president Bubba. But lets not forget how she treated a rape victim who was only 12 when she was raped, and just two years older when Hillary Clinton lied about the victim to get the rapist “off” with a light sentence."
“Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out ‘older men’ like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed ‘Hillary D. Rodham’ in compact cursive…”
from:
http://lidblog.com/when-hillary-clinton-put-a-14-year-old-rape-victim-through-hell/
and
"The audio tapes – ... not only did Clinton use a number of technicalities and devious tricks to essentially free Taylor, she did so knowing full well that he was guilty the whole time. In fact, Clinton even went so far as to slander the victim of the case in her effort to get Taylor a lesser charge than the 30 years he was originally facing.[1][2]

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.
... Clinton went on the warpath against the 12 year-old victim. Goodman writes,
In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”[5]
It turns out Clinton did not need to attack the girl ...

from:
https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/

and(from the rape victim)
“I don’t think [Clinton is] for women or girls,” Arkansas native Kathy Shelton told The Daily Mail in a new interview. “I think she’s lying, I think she said anything she can to get in the campaign and win. If she was [an advocate], she wouldn’t have done that to me at 12 years old.”
from:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sex...r-defending-attacker-and-laughing-about-case/

and(a couple more):
Listen to Hillary Clinton Laugh While Talking About Getting a Suspected Child Rapist Off the Hook
from:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...etting-a-suspected-child-rapist-off-the-hook/

and:
“We’re hired guns,” Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of legal ethics at Chapman University, told theWashington Free Beacon. “We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law.”
However, Rotunda said, for a lawyer to disclose the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt is a potential violation of attorney-client privilege.
“You can’t do that,” he said. “Unless the client says: ‘You’re free to tell people that you really think I’m a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you’re a really clever lawyer.’”

and:
In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
(the victim says that Clinton lied)
from:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

Many sides to the story:
(The truth is like a crystal with a thousand faces-----not one of which reveals the whole truth)
Choose the one that fits our comfort zone.

Oh look, more lies and misrepresentations.

I take it you did not read what I linked and quoted from above, did you? It contains actual videos of what you are lying about and they show just how dishonest you are being in pushing something that is blatantly dishonest and untrue.

There are no "many sides to the story". Even the prosecutor involved with the trial advised that she did her job as she was supposed to, a job she did everything she could to get out of, but she was court appointed and they denied her the right to refuse to represent him. She "laughed" about the results of lie detector tests, because her client managed to pass one after she made him take one, declaring she could no longer trust the validity of those tests as a result of that trial. She also requested psych evaluations, on the recommendation of psychiatrists and doctors who were treating him and the victim. She then took a plea bargain, like around 95% of lawyers who deal in criminal law, especially with sexual assault cases. Not only that, you and others of your ilk are going on about how she treated the victim by questioning her on the stand. This comes years before any laws that restrict the questioning of rape victims during trial.

When even the prosecutor involved in the case claims she did everything above board and describes the absurdity of the conspiracy and untruths you are currently peddling, then it pretty much proves just how dishonest you are being by furthering said conspiracy. You are being no better than birther's and truther's. Based on lies because you want to believe in those lies.

To base her career in jurisprudence on that one trial, while ignoring the decades of work she did in areas of child and victim advocacy is obscene and so dishonest that I am surprised you can sleep at night.
 
Oh look, more lies and misrepresentations.

I take it you did not read what I linked and quoted from above, did you? It contains actual videos of what you are lying about and they show just how dishonest you are being in pushing something that is blatantly dishonest and untrue.

There are no "many sides to the story". Even the prosecutor involved with the trial advised that she did her job as she was supposed to, a job she did everything she could to get out of, but she was court appointed and they denied her the right to refuse to represent him. She "laughed" about the results of lie detector tests, because her client managed to pass one after she made him take one, declaring she could no longer trust the validity of those tests as a result of that trial. She also requested psych evaluations, on the recommendation of psychiatrists and doctors who were treating him and the victim. She then took a plea bargain, like around 95% of lawyers who deal in criminal law, especially with sexual assault cases. Not only that, you and others of your ilk are going on about how she treated the victim by questioning her on the stand. This comes years before any laws that restrict the questioning of rape victims during trial.

When even the prosecutor involved in the case claims she did everything above board and describes the absurdity of the conspiracy and untruths you are currently peddling, then it pretty much proves just how dishonest you are being by furthering said conspiracy. You are being no better than birther's and truther's. Based on lies because you want to believe in those lies.

To base her career in jurisprudence on that one trial, while ignoring the decades of work she did in areas of child and victim advocacy is obscene and so dishonest that I am surprised you can sleep at night.

Additionally, if we really believe in justice, our Constitution, and the rule of law, then we should not punish people for enforcing them and protecting them.

If we punish defense counsels who would represent the accused? Without defense counsels no criminal could ever be convicted.
 
sculptor said:
Perhaps ice has a valid point?
"... Clinton is likely to be willing and able to so compromise her sense of decency according to the ethics of her chosen profession that she will do a good job representing, as President ..."

Perhaps not?
And now you troll my posting, in the same manner your sources troll Clinton's record and words? Some kind of disease, this is.

That wasn't my point. Your edit was deceptive, dishonest, and without excuse. You deliberately omitted the essential and meaning-defining opening words of that sentence:
Apparently, according to your sources, - - -
My point was that you were not even taking the obvious lesson presented by your own bullshit sources, if you did once again for some reason accept them. Not only are you spamming this forum with malignant slander you have no reason to believe, but you are refusing to recognize the obvious implications of that crap if you did believe it.
 
A businessman is different, since he goal is to sell product. He knows some people will like what he sells, and others will not. He will not try to sell to only people who like his product. Rather will spend more effort and resources trying to sell to those who do not like the product; expand the market.
You mean like he tried to demonstrate in Scotland, when he attempted to forcibly eject elderly people from their homes so he could knock down their historic homes for his business venture, and then proceeded to insult the whole town in the process?

A businessman is only interested in turning a profit and most of the time, will ignore pain and suffering of others to do so. A businessman, only cares about his interests and profits, not anyone else's, which is why Trump is attempting to personally profit from his own campaign by having donors pay more for his time and space, than he would pay himself as a salary and yes, turn a profit from the rent he is having them pay, in his own building for his campaign.

Which leads me onto the next rubbish you came out with..

One can see this in Trump and Hillary rallies and how each deals with the press. Trump invite and sells his pitch to all. While Hillary jury selects and her handlers coach the media. I am not saying one is better than the other, but each profession approaches the same thing in different ways consistent with teachings of that profession.
Does this "all" include the many many media outlets he has blacklisted from his political events because they dared to question him? Does this "all" include the press he threatened, when he advised he would amend, or to put it in his words "redo", the First Amendment to allow him to sue any member of the press who criticised him or his ridiculous policies? That was so appalling and downright dangerous that rightwing pundits like Allan West were appalled.

Your "businessman" has openly said he is happy for the US to default.. Then again, this "businessman" also declared bankruptcy what? Four times now? Has lied about his earnings, praised market crashes that saw people lose their homes and money because he was able to make a quick buck, threatens freedom of speech and that of the press and bans the press from his events, not to mention refuses to release his tax return.

I get it, you're a Trumper, but this level of turning a blind eye and outright lying points to a malady. Please seek help or advice for it.
 
How many times has Hillary been on FOX news holding a news conference? How many times has Trump been on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS? This question address how often each candidate goes into hostile media territory biased against them. This shows how strong the candidate is. Hillary prefers to select a favorable jury of her peers that is already in the tank. Trump the businessman is more open to all, since in business there is no preferred customers, since everyone money is good.

Hillary will not allow anyone, who is not with her program, to ask questions at her rallies. The hacked e-mails from the DNA, showed where media people were getting the final approval from DNC, before they publish articles. This was glossed over by the media, which was a disservice to the people. Do you think the media would give a good investigative journalism the Pulitzer prize for this?

This should have been the biggest story, but it was damaging to the media, especially the liberal media that the e-mails pointe out. Trump will censor people from the media if they lie about him; become the propaganda extension of Hillary. Hillary is using the lawyer trick of releasing unsourced information to the press; tell what to write, to help bias the readers in favor of their client. That is not freedom of the press, since journalism is not supposed to be part of the game. One way a businessman deals with slander from lawyers, is with his own lawyers.

It comes back to lawyers and businessmen. A business does not benefit from bad press, especially from a competitor who lies and spins. There are too many dumb people out there who will assume it is real, if the media says it.

The way a businessman should deal with this open season slander is by treating the media like a business competitor. As time goes on, all opinions of today, can be compared to the final facts. All you do is go back a few years and compare media spin and opinions, to the hard facts of the future, to show which news media outlets show the highest levels of incompetence; bad product being sold as good product.

For example, we now know the video was not responsible for the riots in Benghazi. Rather the riots were planned for the anniversary of 9/11. What we do is go back and dig up all the comments and opinions of the press and tabulate how they and Hillary got all got it wrong, insisting a video was responsible. This history of bad product reflects incompetence and lawyer tricks.

FOX news had it right from day one. This should also be shown. Their competence is rewarded with higher market share; businessman. Trump, by banishing some media, is helping them not rack up incompetence points, that will impact their careers.

The EPA and the FDA make sure the physical and food environments are clean. Why not clean up mind pollution, not with more laws, but with incompetence warning labels that the media has to show before each broadcast. The consumer of news needs a watch dog, who tabulates patterns from the past, since the present is not a good place to determine what is an illusion and lawyer trick.
 
Last edited:
Coupl'a things
Bells, wasting your time calling me a liar for posting what was already on the web ain't gonna have a positive effect.
My advice: Eschew it.
Ice if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, perhaps you should focus your time and energies on finding something good to say about your prefered candidate. And make a real point.

(personal bias) I have always vilified the lawyers who attack the victim during rape trials.
(I know, I know, that's the way our "justice system" works. --- But, It still sux!)
I equate that sort of re-victimizing the victim as not much different than islamic extremist who stone women to death for being raped.
Blame the victim...................................
I find the behaviour repugnant. And those who would do such a thing also repugnant. So, I reposted what I had read online in such a way as to express my bias.
(Alternately, we have the opinions of Henrik Ibsen's Captain Black) And, thereby, some accused of "rape" are actually innocent(Dotson, etc...)

For further personal attacks
Please see: (and post in)
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903
 
Coupl'a things
Bells, wasting your time calling me a liar for posting what was already on the web ain't gonna have a positive effect.
I think that it is important to point out exactly how you are a liar and the evidence that we can find that demonstrates your willingness to distribute lies. This helps readers judge you as a source of information; in the future, readers should weight information from you as less reliable and, if they are interested in the topic you discuss, go to more reliable sources for information.
 
I think that it is important to point out exactly how you are a liar and the evidence that we can find that demonstrates your willingness to distribute lies. This helps readers judge you as a source of information; in the future, readers should weight information from you as less reliable and, if they are interested in the topic you discuss, go to more reliable sources for information.

Excellent idea.
Please do so.
Please post in:
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903
.................................................................
Did you not take the links provided?
Or: Are you acting out of ignorance?
 
Last edited:
Coupl'a things
Bells, wasting your time calling me a liar for posting what was already on the web ain't gonna have a positive effect.
My advice: Eschew it.
You are literally posting lies. Literally. And you expect people to take you seriously or to believe you?

(personal bias) I have always vilified the lawyers who attack the victim during rape trials.
(I know, I know, that's the way our "justice system" works. --- But, It still sux!)
Is that why you are voting for Trump?

After boxer Mike Tyson was sentenced to six years for raping an 18-year-old beauty queen, Donald Trump responded by arguing on national television that Tyson had been “railroaded,” noting that she had gone to Tyson’s hotel room on her own.

“You have a young woman that was in his hotel room late in the evening at her own will,” Trump told NBC News in 1992, in a clip dug up by Buzzfeed. “You have a young woman seen dancing for the beauty contest—dancing with a big smile on her face, looked happy as can be.”

“It’s my opinion that to a large extent, Mike Tyson was railroaded in this case,” Trump said.

Purely by coincidence, Trump’s advocacy for Tyson came at a time when he stood to make a huge profit if he was released. As Mother Jones noted in December, “Tyson’s bouts had been highly lucrative for Trump’s casinos, which paid millions to host the fights but reaped millions more in revenues from the surge in gambling that resulted during these highly anticipated events.”

Hey, it's okay to blame the rape victim when the object is to make a quick buck, huh?

Or are you just against lawyers doing that? But okay with others doing it? I mean, the irony is that you accuse her of doing exactly what you have done. You dispute the number of rapes, thereby dismissing actual rapes because you don't believe they happened. You even compared women to children in doing so.

And Clinton did not blame the rape victim. She asked for a psychiatric exam.

I equate that sort of re-victimizing the victim as not much different than islamic extremist who stone women to death for being raped.
Blame the victim...................................
I find the behaviour repugnant. And those who would do such a thing also repugnant. So, I reposted what I had read online in such a way as to express my bias.
(Alternately, we have the opinions of Henrik Ibsen's Captain Black) And, thereby, some accused of "rape" are actually innocent(Dotson, etc...)
But you do the same thing.

I mean hell, Trump went on national TV and blamed the victim for her own rape. And you are voting for him, while accusing a 'lawyer', who was forced to defend a rapist and in doing so, asked for a psych exam for the victim after child psychologists and others advised she may have been making it up, of blaming the victim.. And I am not even touching on the rape allegations against Trump..

You posted lies. Sheer and utter lies. And you keep doing it.

For further personal attacks
Please see: (and post in)
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903
Or how about you just stop posting lies?

A good start, wouldn't you say?
 
I repeat, please post personal attacks in:
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903

When you get there, if you think I lied please be specific.
Did you take the link to: https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/
and read the court documents wherein it was claimed that:
In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”[5]
It turns out Clinton did not need to attack the girl ..

OK
do you have anything---------anything at all from the supposed child psychologist?
Anything?
Perhaps you think(from the linked) that Goodman lied?
Please redirect to:
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903

This thread was created for a different purpose.
Can you respect that?
 
and read the court documents wherein it was claimed that:
The part you quoted speaks against your claims.

If you lied in this thread and weirdly continue doing so, so why should we move discussion of these lies to another thread?
 
How so?
Can you produce anything directly from the supposed child psychologist?
Did you find his or her name and affidavit, along with his or her credentials in any of the court documents? It would seem that you are trying to foist this attack by Ms Clinton off on an unknown and possibly fictitious third party?

The claimed by Ms Clinton seems right out of some pop psyc, article.
Prove me wrong.
Show me the proof.
Or, back off.

................................
again, wrong thread for personal attacks.
please post in:
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903
or create a thread of your own.
 
Last edited:
It seems that we are stuck on candidate styles rather than presidential styles.
Anything we can throw under the wheels to get some traction?
 
I repeat, please post personal attacks in:
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903

When you get there, if you think I lied please be specific.
Did you take the link to: https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/
and read the court documents wherein it was claimed that:
Intellihub? Really? That's the best you can come up with? Their home page has a huge banner about proof of "chemtrails".

It's a conspiracy website. And this is what you are relying on? Seriously!?

You lied because everything you have posted and linked on this subject is not true. Literally not true. You are peddling a stupid conspiracy that has no basis in fact. You keep saying it's a personal attack.. But you are literally peddling lies based on a stupid conspiracy that you obviously got from a conspiracy website. They even have articles about the US and the UN moving vehicles into Texas to take over the State, as well as proof of "chemtrails" falling from the sky in Ohio.

At this point, I don't know whether to burst our laughing or groan in disgust at what you are posting and from where...

I read the transcripts, I linked earlier. None of it supports your conspiracy theory. Ergo, you are being blatantly dishonest in pushing this narrative. I especially like how you ignore Trump's actual victim blaming and shaming, not to mention at least 3 different people have accused him of rape, including of raping a 13 year old girl. Hey, he's your guy!

But hey, why don't you go back to your conspiracy website. Because heaven forbid you actually face reality.

OK
do you have anything---------anything at all from the supposed child psychologist?
Anything?
Perhaps you think(from the linked) that Goodman lied?
Please redirect to:
http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903

This thread was created for a different purpose.
Can you respect that?
It's a case from 1975! You could read the documents presented to the Court which are linked and detailed in the Snopes article I provided multiple times.

Or alternatively you can just refer back to the website that's ranting about chemtrails and the UN invading the US for your information and keep peddling conspiracies and lies.

Your choice really.

And stop continuously demanding that we take your ridiculous assertions and our response to it to another thread. You have posted that so many times now that it can easily constitute spam. Keep doing it, and I will report you for it.
 
In sculptor's defense (in some fashion) maybe it's not lies, but someone naturally that stupid.

I did hint at that previously.
 
Back
Top