And here's a shot of Donnie where maybe he's trying to count up to 10, or maybe he's just wingin' it.
Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.
- Thread starter wellwisher
- Start date
And so I am not pro-Clinton in any sense that would support your silly claim that "reliable", to me, means "pro-Clinton", in a source. You accept manipulation from long time sources of manipulation, forces and factions long familiar to we who live in America and follow such matters. You join, thereby, the faction of Americans who have allowed themselves to be manipulated by those sources. The Tribe.schmelzer said:
If you care whether Clinton is a maniac, then perforce you care about the information you need to make that assessment. All I ever did is point out that you did not have that information. And you have verified that assessment, repeatedly. You watch manipulator prepared and selected and edited videos from wingnut sites and think you see mania, without any idea of the context of the video or the long and public and well-documented career of its subject. I direct your attention to your ignorance, and what recognition of that ignorance should tell you.schmelzer said:
Being anti Trump and not pro Clinton are not mutually exclusive.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
In general, of course. But there is the critical question, which is a binary one: Who is less evil, Trump or Clinton. Regarding the answer to this binary question, anti Trump means pro Clinton.
In general, I'm anti-Trump as well as anti-Clinton, as I think every reasonable person is.
You have, afair consistently, and in particular without even knowing my sources, rejected all pro-Trump sources as unreliable. Thus, to be reliable, your source has to be, in the binary question who is less evil, pro-Clinton.
Feel free to remind me any pro-Trump source which you have classified as reliable.
Nonsense. I use, of course, sources which are prejudiced. Because there are no other sources. Some really try to manipulate. Once such attempt are recognized, I do not consider them as reliable. But, in fact, I do not rely on "reliable" sources at all. I prefer to extract information from all sources. This is what I have learned, already in communist childhood, and known as "reading between the lines".
Yes. Therefore I have cared about the question if the videos which indicate that she is a maniac are really videos made of her, not of some actor pretending to be Clinton. Which is the information which is important.
As far as you have given additional information, it appeared to me irrelevant, and did not change my conclusion. As far as you have not given additional information, such pointing out is irrelevant.
Don't forget: We never have all information. So, to claim that some information is missed is cheap. All what makes sense is to give information I do not have. Which you have done in approximately 2% of your posts.
The lesser of two evils principle does not invoke a question of polar opposites, and hence, not a binary one.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Does not make sense. The question is "who is less evil", which has two answers: "Trump" and "Clinton". Everything else, like "I don't know", "I don't want to answer", "it does not matter", "incorrect question, none of them, they are equally evil" are variants of a refusal to answer.
No, I haven't. I have rejected your sources as unreliable - the ones you are getting the familiar Hillaryhate garbage from, that is found in unreliable sources and nowhere else, for example.schmelzer said:
It just has to be posting non-garbage.schmelzer said:
No. Fact.schmelzer said:
You are in error in thinking you have learned to recognize American propagandists's manipulation of that kind, or that you can "extract information" from them.schmelzer said:
My statement is accurate. You do in fact routinely accept manipulation from sources long familiar to better informed Americans as simply agencies of manipulation, with no allegiance to fact of any kind - and fairly crude ones, at that. You have proven to be completely vulnerable to even the silliest and crudest of the Hillaryhate nonsense with which American has been deluged since 1992, for example. The same is true, in other settings, of these same sources's (again, they are familiar to Americans) deceptive garbage on topics such as climate change, race relations, and so forth.
You post stuff like this:
Fact is, the videos do not indicate that she is a maniac, and people familiar for decades now with Clinton's career, long record of interviews, and long history of press relations, have no trouble avoiding such a false inference. So how did you come to make that mistake?schmelzer said:
No, it isn't - it's the key fact you have to notice, to avoid being played for a sucker by American marketing pros.schmelzer said:
There are plenty of sources - such as Leonard C Goodman in the September issue of "In These Times" - who are "reliable" in the sense they write in good faith, and consider Clinton to be no less of an evil than Trump. But they do not deal in Clinton Derangement bs.schmelzer said:
There are no actually "pro-Trump", in my sense of the term, and also fact or reality based, sources at all - but that's because of fact and reality, not ideological stance.
The semantic police say that unless you mean Trump 'or' Clinton instead of 'and' you seemingly contradict yourself. Also, unless you clarify that one candidate is good and the other evil you cannot have a binary question.
Anyway, this is way off topic, but is English a second language to you? I don't think I can indulge in some serious gaslighting if it is.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Not you too. Isn't the concept of "gaslighting" being severely misused when applied to anything that can occur on a forum?
Je ne sais pas trop.
This angry rhetoric and slanderous scenario has been brought up and refuted multiple times... continuing to repost beaten arguments is simply dishonesty on display.
Hillary, in her early defense lawyer days, helped a rapist get off by attacking the 12 year old girl who got raped. This observation is not a value judgment. As a lawyer, Hillary was doing the job she was trained to do, which was defend her client, not judging his innocence or guilt. Instead her job involved coaching him to look innocent, while attacking the 12 year old accuser.
Since this is expected of a defense lawyer, many people; sympathy jury, will not fact check lawyer, Hillary. This is not a value judgement of Hillary, rather her reaction to Trump is predictable by her professional training. For example after Trump started courting the black vote he is now being accused of being a racist. If Trump was a 12 year old girl and Hillary's client; herself, was a rapist, 12 year old Trump would be made to appear like the queen of the brothel. Lawyers are never accused of perjury, allowing Hillary to lie and get away with it.
Jury selection becomes important, since Hillary will choose those who will buy anything she sells, because she has a D next to her name. There is no perjury law for lawyers, when doing their job. Lying is considered acceptable. People have become conditioned this way, when it comes to lawyers. This is why lawyers may not be the best choice for leaders. I am not saying all lawyers are this way, but deception is part of the training.
Consider this scenario. Say a gangbanger enters a gun shop to buy some fire arms. He has the gang colors and tattoos so it is not ambiguous. The businessman owner is greedy, so he sells him all the guns he wants, without doing any background checking. If the gangbanger uses those gun and kills someone, the gun owner is liable under new laws. Say this gangbanger goes to trial and hires a lawyer. His lawyer, like the businessman, does not care about innocent, guilt or future intent, if his money is green. The lawyer is very clever and allows the gangbanger to beat the charge. The gangbanger goes out the same day and kill again. The lawyer is not liable even though he and the businessman both contributed to the means in different ways.
The lawyers have created a system that treats lawyers differently. This is why we need to elect officials who are not lawyers. Lawyers are one the of few professions that gets to police itself. This is becoming a problem. Maybe we need to allow another profession to police the lawyers. Hillary does not have to be truthful even when caught red handed because of the dual standard. Her occupation makes this part of what is expected.
Since this is expected of a defense lawyer, many people; sympathy jury, will not fact check lawyer, Hillary. This is not a value judgement of Hillary, rather her reaction to Trump is predictable by her professional training. For example after Trump started courting the black vote he is now being accused of being a racist. If Trump was a 12 year old girl and Hillary's client; herself, was a rapist, 12 year old Trump would be made to appear like the queen of the brothel. Lawyers are never accused of perjury, allowing Hillary to lie and get away with it.
Jury selection becomes important, since Hillary will choose those who will buy anything she sells, because she has a D next to her name. There is no perjury law for lawyers, when doing their job. Lying is considered acceptable. People have become conditioned this way, when it comes to lawyers. This is why lawyers may not be the best choice for leaders. I am not saying all lawyers are this way, but deception is part of the training.
Consider this scenario. Say a gangbanger enters a gun shop to buy some fire arms. He has the gang colors and tattoos so it is not ambiguous. The businessman owner is greedy, so he sells him all the guns he wants, without doing any background checking. If the gangbanger uses those gun and kills someone, the gun owner is liable under new laws. Say this gangbanger goes to trial and hires a lawyer. His lawyer, like the businessman, does not care about innocent, guilt or future intent, if his money is green. The lawyer is very clever and allows the gangbanger to beat the charge. The gangbanger goes out the same day and kill again. The lawyer is not liable even though he and the businessman both contributed to the means in different ways.
The lawyers have created a system that treats lawyers differently. This is why we need to elect officials who are not lawyers. Lawyers are one the of few professions that gets to police itself. This is becoming a problem. Maybe we need to allow another profession to police the lawyers. Hillary does not have to be truthful even when caught red handed because of the dual standard. Her occupation makes this part of what is expected.
Except the guy didn't get off. He went to prison...oops. Hillary was a defense lawyer who represented the poor. Where it not for people like Hillary it would be impossible to convict the vast majority of criminals, because according to the Constitution, they are entitled to a legal defense. It's that Constitution thingy again. Unfortunately for Republicans we don't arrest people, convict, them, and throw them in jail without due process of law.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Seriously?
How many god damn times does this have to be explained? Or are you that thick? Because right now, your options are that you are either thick or trolling. Either way, this has been explained so many times that we can only assume absolute slanderous maliciousness on your behalf. I will assume you do not read any links or articles provided? Rather just shove your head in a deep dark stinky hole and ignore reality? What is it with some of you people doing this?
A) She did not "get him off". It was a plea bargain, which happens in around 95%+ of such cases. Which means he plead guilty. He wasn't declared innocent or acquitted. So stop lying.
B) She was court appointed to the case. She didn't volunteer her services. The court forced her to take the case.
C) This expectation that she somehow or other not do her job because dimwits in the future might look back on it and claim she's getting rapists off is beyond a joke.
D) You are carrying on like only she chose the jury...
E) You have absolutely no evidence that she coached him to "look innocent". On the contrary, she made him plead guilty as part of the plea bargain. Do you understand this? He didn't "get off". He plead guilty and went to jail.
F) Trump, on the other hand, has been accused of raping a teenage girl who was underage and the case is currently in court. I notice you say nothing about him or his lawyers. Interesting that, huh?
G) If you or anyone else spouts this utter rubbish slander again, you will be reported. Enough is enough. There's only so many times that you and your ilk can spout this lie and expect to get away with it. That ends now.
That gangbanger most likely wouldn't have the money to "hire" a lawyer. The lawyer would be provided for the gangbanger and paid for by the state. It would be someone like Hillary Clinton. Unlike a businessman, that lawyer is bound by law to provide his client a competent defense. If that lawyer doesn't provide a competent defense to his client i.e. the accused, and the accused is convicted, that conviction could be subsequently reversed. Hillary did what she was legally obliged to do, and you think there is something malicious in that...really?
Oh, and just how are lawyers treated differently? What do you mean by your statement that lawyers are one of the few professions which gets to police itself? If you are referring to state licencing boards, then you are wrong. Virtually every regulated profession has a regulatory board. Are your really that ignorant or are your really just that dishonest? Because those are your two choices here.
Where is your evidence of this "double standard" you claim exists? It doesn't exist. That's why you can't point to even a single example of it. That's why you have no credible evidence of it. Where is your evidence that Hillary hasn't been "truthful even when caught red handed"? The unfortunate fact for you is lawyers, especially trial lawyers, are one of the most scrutinized professions in the country.
Last edited:
Wow, welcome to the wrong side of the facts, as we have just discussed for many pages.
Are you a parody account of a conservative?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
The attack, it turned out, was unnecessary.
The prosecution dropped the ball by losing evidence, and accepted a plea bargain down from rape to fondling.
From the rape case in 1975 to Libya and Syria, etc... :
It would seem that Hillary Hawk Clinton's first instinct is to attack.
And, She is most likely to soon be the C.I.C. of the most powerful military on the planet.
The attack, it turned out, was unnecessary.
The prosecution dropped the ball by losing evidence, and accepted a plea bargain down from rape to fondling.
From the rape case in 1975 to Libya and Syria, etc... :
It would seem that Hillary Hawk Clinton's first instinct is to attack.
And, She is most likely to soon be the C.I.C. of the most powerful military on the planet.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The semantic defense lawyer rejects this accusation. The sentence is a claim not about persons, but about possible answers. There are two possible answers to the question: "Trump is less evil" (abbreviated "Trump") is one answer, "Clinton is less evil" (abbreviation "Clinton") is the other answer. Above are answers. In a complete list of possible answers they should be connected by "and". Instead, "or" would be wrong. It would allow for the possibility that "Trump is less evil" would be a possible answer but "Clinton is less evil" not.
A binary question is a question which has only two possible answers. This does not include any information how the answer can be justified.
Not even the second, it is the third one.
Feel free to think so. I couldn't care less, given that you only repeat this claim, without providing evidence.
In the rare cases where you present facts, there have been no problems to clarify the issue. In the case of the Hillary video, even your claim that it was out of context was sufficient for me to find the context and accept that, indeed, it was out of context. Your problem is that you don't have the experience to extract information from prejudiced, manipulating sources. This is a technique one has to learn. Part of the technique is to extract the information which is hard (even if not impossible) to manipulate. In the case of the video, the video itself, the expression of her face. Another technique is translation - replace all emotional words by neutral ones. Another is to focus on scientific claims. Another one to focus on claims which are not questioned by the other side.
You, instead, use a completely different scheme. You distinguish reliable from unreliable sources, which suggests that you have some list of sources you think are reliable. This is quite naive. There exist, of course, huge differences in reliability. But the experienced reader knows that in problematic political questions completely reliable sources simply do not exist, but that one can, sometimes, extract information even from completely unreliable propaganda sources.
Similarly, looks like you distinguish some evil sites, which contain only manipulated garbage, in all questions. And this is not a general characteristic. Instead, these are only a few, "familiar to Americans". (Usually these are the sites of the political enemy, so, for Americans with a different political beliefs these manipulating sites are probably those you love.) And this strongly suggests that you have also some "reliable" sites. The typical error of those who have such "reliable" sites is that they believe the "reliable" sites even if they fail.
It may be a mistake. The art to distinguish, by looking at such videos, a maniac from a non-maniac is a difficult one even for professionals. (Which prefer to err in the unfavorable for the evaluated direction - if a maniac will be released they may get a problem, if a non-maniac remains imprisoned this is no danger at all.) So, it is reasonable to expect that there will be disagreement. And I do not wonder at all if your "reliable" sources heavily object against my personal conclusion. But so what? Don't forget, I risk nothing if my bet is false. It would be even good news for me, increasing my own probability to survive the next four years.
Of course, the general idea "don't look commercials, they always lie" works even without actual evidence or arguments that a given commercial lies. But what you do is not that general recommendation, I have not remembered from you any "don't trust any American political site, they all lie". There seems to be only a subset of American political sites which you reject.
IOW, your reliable sources are not pro-Trump. Which is what I have said. That this is only because of joepistole-like "facts" is what has to be expected.
I work differently. I do not have a list of "reliable sources", I have bookmarks of sites with a lot of interesting (for me) information. All of them with some identified bias, and many with identified weaknesses.
OK, Imma shut up after this but, Fish & Chips is one item, Fish or Chips is two.
PhysBang said:
It's actually kind of complicated, but Wellwisher appears to be emblematic of a result derived from disparate and often dissonant policies. To the one is an assertion toward overriding respect for the scientific method; to the other is a context of diversity apparently―though not explicitly―requiring the protection of exclusionist and denigrating speech according to particular issues. Over the years, some really bad behavior has survived because that's just the way it works out.
As to Poe's Law, he's really, really dedicated, so, you know, I would still worry if it was all just some manner of provocateurism to discredit conservatives.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member