Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Yeah. As resentment-inducing as they are, lawyers do help keep the justice system out of Kangaroo Court territory.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:01:35 AM by nervmeister
Professional, high-profile defense attorneys, the kind who get paid loads of money by wealthy clients to get them off the hook for anything and everything, frequently are scum, or at least morally questionable. Public defenders, on the other hand, are the lowest rung of the totem pole, paid like shit, overworked, and forced to do their utmost to defend the Constitutional rights of some of humanity's worst specimens, occasionally getting one off on technicalities, but mostly just slogging through a job that's deliberately made as difficult as possible. And when they do encounter a genuinely innocent defendant, the system is so stacked against them that they usually have to offer them a plea bargain instead of fighting for exoneration.
That anyone would be willing to do this job is a mark of near sainthood, never mind if they turn out to be good at it. Clinton got that rape case to go to a plea bargain, obtaining a conviction for a rapist while saving the court system the expense of a trial. That's about the best you can expect. As sad as it is, victims in these kinds of cases go through hell, and it's not the PD's fault.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:11:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Given the utterly horrendous shit the police get up to when their person of interest doesn't know their rights, I believe public defenders should be paid a god-damned sight better than they are, bless their souls.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I agree. Public defenders are underpaid and frequently overworked. The problem, again, is that stigma of "If you were arrested, you did it." Mix in a little poor-hate and you've got a recipe for "Scumbag lawyer who takes the cases even the other scumbag attorneys wouldn't touch with a ten-foot-pole."
Because the privileged elite think anyone can afford a lawyer, the only reason they can imagine for why you would use a public defender is because you are so guilty that no one with even a shred of principles will take your case.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:26:05 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.- Clinton is extremely close to Wall Street, to the extent that her financial policy is going to be very close to what you'd get from a moderate Republican. She's far to the right, on fiscal policy, from most mainstream Democrats. That means, from a fiscal perspective, the current election is mostly between the right and the far-right. Clinton likes to talk to massive corporations and various Wall Street associations, earning literally millions of dollars per hour for her talks. That, in just about any other country, would be viewed as very blatant corruption and a conflict of interest that would make her ineligible to participate in policy discussions - which, for the role that the US President has, would essentially mean she can't be a candidate for that position.
- Clinton is also very hawkish. She's much more inclined to favour military solutions than Obama, for instance, but not quite as much as Obama's predecessor. Democrats tend to like politicians who are less willing to commit to military conflicts, but Clinton is clearly on the other side of that spectrum.
- The email scandal is actually a valid problem. Not only did she endanger national security by using that private email server - albeit for pretty understandable reasons, convenience highest among them - but the fact she deleted so many emails on the basis that they were "personal" is actually a real political scandal. None of the other Democrat candidates in the primaries had anything of that scale on their record, and if they did, they would have been out of the campaign very quickly. Clinton's massive experience carried her through that, and in the actual election she's getting by because Trump is so bad.
- Clinton is a political opportunist. Now, you might say this is bears-shit-in-the-wood territory, but she's more opportunistic and less principled than most politicians. Again, there are worse recent examples - Mitt Romney, for instance - but she's still up there. With international trade deals, in particular, she's flip-flopped quite a lot, based on whether she's involved in an election or not. She seems to be genuinely in favour of them.
- Clinton lies and evades questions just like Trump does, but in a smaller scale. Well, that's a bit of an understatement - the quantity and scale of her lies is tiny compared to Trump. Compared to a more normal politician, though - let's say John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi, for instance - she's quite a frequent liar. In this election the perception, at times, has been that she's not giving press conferences and interviews because she knows she'd have to lie, and by letting Trump just Trump his own campaign she can basically wait it out and cruise over the line on election day.
- Clinton associates with war criminals, such as Henry Kissinger. Now, you can say it's a matter of practicality over principle to make sure you're getting relevant parties around the table to get things done, even if - to borrow a bit from Hugo Chavez - you're sitting on a table that smells of sulphur. I certainly don't object to politicians who are willing to negotiate with Iran or North Korea. Inviting someone with no current political power, though, should only be done when you don't actually know for a fact that the person you're inviting is a war criminal. This is not as big of a problem as the ones I listed above, because most people don't care all that much, but basically if she was calling Ratko Mladic for foreign policy advice it would be equivalent to what she's actually doing.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared to take a bit of time on this and do some research, rather than listing off the top of my head.
Basically, in a normal election Clinton would be among the worst candidates the Democrats could pick, even with all the relevant experience she's had. (And I definitely do appreciate her experience and contacts to other countries - if I was American my vote would be quite heavily influenced by that sort of thing, in a non-Trump year.)
She's very lucky that the Republicans went with Trump, rather than Cruz or Ryan. Now, I personally would have still voted for Clinton over those two, but it's fairly likely that the country in general might have went over to the Republicans with that sort of ticket.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:28:44 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I think she could have taken Cruz, but by a slimmer margin than Trump. He doesn't play as well with the lunatic fringe with the tradeoff that he's more palatable for everyone else - but he's also got his crazy religious agenda which is offputting for non-Christians, and even some Christians get antsy when someone starts claiming to be God's Chosen One.
People like their divine intervention, holy messiahs, and miraculous labors to be historical notes, not current events. Even if you believe in Jesus, you're likely to be incredibly skeptical of someone who starts walking around claiming to be the Second Coming. Cruz doesn't go quite that far, but the point is: even religious folk tend to raise some eyebrows at anyone who swears to be carrying out the will of God on Earth.
Hell, I think it's right there in the Bible. The Antichrist is supposed to be a false prophet, isn't he?
Paul Ryan might actually be a fight, though. He's very popular and doesn't have any major sticking points of crazy.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:35:13 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Just for a pespective from Finland, if Paul Ryan was standing as a candidate in a Finnish election with his current political views he'd be considered a joke candidate. He'd have to start a party of his own; the only people as far right as him in Finland are actual nazis, and they don't have a political party registered. (Well, some people with absolutely crazy far-right views along Ryan's lines exist in the two most right-wing parties, but they're not the mainstream of either party.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.And had the Republicans nominated Rubio or (especially) a relative moderate (or someone who can pretend to be a moderate) like Scott Walker or John Kasich, Clinton would probably have lost.
But the GOP doesn't want to nominate stealth right-wingers, they wanted a demagogue.
I see your point, even the Finns Party wouldn't align with him on economics.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:40:42 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
![]()
Honestly most of that post comes off as just assuming popular perception is truth without actually providing evidence. Like, what is the proof she lies quite a bit more than a "normal" politician? Like, you shouldn't just say she's "obviously hawkish" as that's a thing that doesn't need to be explained.
Perception, while important (maybe even more important), does not always reflect reality. A lot of people's perceptions of Trump is that he's bluntly honest about everything and just saying hard truths, but that couldn't be further for the truth.
Edit: Seeing as you said you listed that off the top of your head without actually doing any research, kind of gets to the root of the problem.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:48:45 AM by LSBK
Despite what people say about her, Clinton's beliefs are in line with most of the country. At the same time, they hate her because that's what they've been told to do from day 1.
You've got a candidate with actual plans, solutions, and experience vs a neo nazi who knows nothing about our government. And people would rather have the neo nazi even though Clinton would help them.
re: Broaddrick - I linked this yesterday and it's a reasonable critical article from a liberal site
. Their conclusion is that it's not clear cut as it's only Broderick's word against Bill's and Broderick wasn't consistant with her testimony (which doesn't mean she's lying.)
As for Hillary going after Bill's accusers the way she did, on the one hand the ferocity with which she did so is not cool (and at odds with what she now says about believing women who make assult/rape claims). On the other hand, going by accounts of personal friends, she believed Bill when he told him he was innocent (when he wasn't) and believed it was a Republican conspiracy (only to have it blow up in her face when Bill finally copped to it). Maybe she's learned from that experience. Maybe she owes recompense to some of those women, but also maybe just now is a poor time to do it. i also don't think it's cool that Beitbart and Trump are trying to exploit their tragedy for political points, though the possibility they know full well what they're doing also exists.
Does anyone know anything more about this story?
Trump wanted to put Bill Clinton’s accusers in his family box. Debate officials said no.
Story summary: Trump campaign allegedly planned on seating the four women in the Clinton family box so they could confront Bill Clinton on national television. Debate organisers only found out at the last minute and had to threaten the Trump campaign with security to stop them going through with the plan. Giuliani allegedly said the Trump campaign backed down because they didn't want an incident with security on national television and that, as far as they're concerned, the debate organisers objecting to the plan is proof that the Clintons' were rattled, which is what the Trump campaign wanted. The Clinton campaign claims they had no idea any of this was happening.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:46:47 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.- Political figures and celebrities give paid speeches all the time. It's literally part of how the business world works, and the same is true in any other country. Now, if she had taken money to speak while acting in a public capacity, like Secretary of State, she might be in violation of ethics principles, but as a private citizen she can do anything she damn well wants. And her professed economic policy is not "center-right", unless you view "left" as the synthesis of Mao and Stalin. I don't agree with all of it, but the current Democratic platform is the most progressive in our nation's history.
- There is no reliable evidence that Clinton's military agenda is "significantly more hawkish" than Obama's, and in any event, it's pretty much an accepted fact that the U.S. will be at war with terrorists in and around the Middle-East for the foreseeable future. Clinton, during her time in State, helped negotiate a treaty with Iran that curtailed its nuclear program. If she were as hawkish as people claim, why did she do that, instead of pushing for war like almost literally everyone in the GOP? Our next major geopolitical conflict seems to be brewing with Russia, and I'd rather have someone who will stand up to Putin rather than licking his balls (like Trump) or preemptively surrendering all global power (like Johnson).
- The email scandal is complete hogwash. Clinton's deletion of emails was of personal emails from her private account, and she's allowed to do that. The practice of using a private server for State business was technically against regulations but was widely condoned at the time, with her predecessors not only doing it but recommending it to her. There is no evidence that any breach occurred that would have allowed our enemies to view her emails, nor that she intentionally sent or received any classified documents.
- Clinton is an extraordinarily principled politician who has taken stands on important issues since the very beginning of her career. She has advocated for expanded health insurance, for example, for her entire time in politics. That a politician, once in office, must compromise, negotiate, and advocate for positions that are not perfectly aligned with their beliefs is part of the job, and a very important one. It's how the system is designed to work. Remove it and you get total gridlock, like what has happened with recent Republican Congresses.
- Clinton's statements have been rated, overall, more truthful than most other current political figures, close only to Bernie Sanders himself. This meme that she lies more, or more frequently, than other Democrats is simply false.
- As a politician, one is required to "associate" with people that one might personally dislike. The only reason an issue is being made of it is because it's Hillary Clinton.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:47:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Distribution of statements by degree of truth:
Normal politicians:
Republicans:
Pence is a pretty big liar by politician standards.
Trump is in a league of his own.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.The problem is that the GOP has spent decades smearing HRC as some kind of Lady Macbeth like supervillainess. It's hard to tell which scandals are real and which are bullshit. It's even harder to tell just how serious the real scandals actually are. And of course every single flaw and decision is painted in a negative light whenever possible.
It doesn't help that the American media also hates HRC. It's a Vicious Cycle of sorts. The smear campaign makes her paranoid and secretive —> this pisses off the press who try their hardest to dig up dirt on her and her family —> this pisses her off even more and makes her even more paranoid and secretive —> and so on. Hence why she has terrible optics.
And yes, she is supportive of free trade agreements, which in America usually means "corporation friendly deals". Though she at least wants a free trade agreement that meets her standards. Supposedly (and I'm not certain she's sincere) she's not in favor of the TPP anymore because in its current state it does not meet her standards.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:49:42 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedNever mind that the TPP is not Satan's pact to bring the world into the Ninth Circle of Hell, and people who act like it is are discrediting themselves more than the people they argue against. It's not great, but the reasons it's not great have absolutely nothing to do with trade. It's worth noting that, by opposing it, Clinton is breaking from President Obama, who has steadfastly promoted it, and by showing her willingness to change her point of view in the face of public scrutiny, she's acting like a good politician.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:51:51 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
For me at least, it's the SOPA like parts of the TPP that concern me. I do however understand part of why President Obama and others want this deal. It's a pretty ambitious deal that would grant America and the other countries in the deal a lot of economic power in the Pacific. Kind of like our own little version of the EU. China's recent actions are a factor as well.
edited 10th Oct '16 11:54:15 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedPolitifact has a much larger truth pool than just the seven linked above.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The pool is a good point. If you've been in a high office for tons of years, your truth/lie ratio is going to even out, due to the sheer presence of data. Now, some people do disproportionately lie (like Trump), but others simply look like that because of a relatively small amount of data.
This is a signature.That said, Clinton is legit on the hawkish side of the Democratic spectrum. Of course, that just means that she's willing to use the military in the event that she believes it's necessary (eg, she supports enforcing no-fly zones over Syria to prevent Russia and Assad from bombing their own people), not that she's likely to go invade places for funsies.

There is a stigma against defense attorneys in general. The attitude is that defense attorneys are amoral scumbags who make their money by trying to get guilty people off the hook for the heinous crimes they commit.
This goes hand-in-hand with the "Guilty until proven Innocent" mindset that people often approach judicial cases with. It's related to an equivalent stigma that if your case actually goes to trial, then you're guilty.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.