Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2016, 11:40 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2016 11:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 11:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 10:16 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Link?

When did you stop beating the shit out of your boyfriend? See, I can make up loaded questions too. Can you name a single woman politician I hate other than Hillary Clinton? It should be easy as pie for you, provided that you weren't talking out of your ass.

I think Bucky is the one getting beat. That theory explains his obvious brain damage.

I forgive you for mistaking your own brain damage for Fullerene's. ..... It's not your fault. You just wasn't raised right. Now get the fuck off the grass.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-06-2016, 11:54 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 10:23 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 09:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 09:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You really have no fucking clue about how our judicial system works do you?. Hell, I doubt you know what your home country position on due process is. .
I made no claims about your judicial systems, I asked a legitimate question. Don't you think it's strange for a person who has been granted immunity to refuse to answer any and all questions on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves? Consider

It's even stranger when someone who is ignorant of the law here imputes guilt upon another person based on the first person's 5th Amendment plea.

Your question isn't "legitimate", because your premise (a subordinate's plea equates to a superior's guilt) is simply slipshod thinking.

You're supposed to be smarter than this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
22-06-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 11:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I'm trying to point out that a report is not proof. It isn't given under oath. I don't know whether or not she's guilty -- and neither do you. You are choosing to accept that report at face value, but what support do you have for that?

Here in America, we allow for the presumption of innocence. Obviously we voters here take into account media reports, and government reports. I do that as well. But I also know that reports aren't facts.
Well, what do you think these reports are based on? Hot air? The State Department itself came out and said that Clinton stored top secret information on her private e-mail server. Are you suggesting that the State Department doesn't base their press releases on facts? We have months and months of newspaper articles citing government officials and expert opinions on this case. What more could you possibly want? I'm not suggesting that she be sent to jail without a proper trial, I'm saying that it doesn't take a formal trial for evidence of someone's guilt to exist. All the evidence available to the public right now points towards her guilt.

(22-06-2016 11:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Because a misstatement can be used against you.

Do you think all convictions are valid? Do you think prosecutors never wangle and angle in order to secure another career-padding conviction? Do you think no one would ever take to heart the admonishment that "whatever you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"?

I'm happy to let the jurors, if and when they are empaneled, to hear the facts and come to their conclusion. I personally think she is guilty, of either malfeasance or at the least bad judgement, butI don't think that a subordinate pleading the Fifth is evidence of that, any more than I think your own son not owning up to his misdeed is proof of your own bad parenting,

A 5th-Amendment plea is not an admission of guilt. You clearly don't understand that, but that's cool. Even allowing your gratuitous assumption (which is obviously arguable under American jurisprudence), the very most you can conclude is that the subordinate committed a crime.

[...]

Not neccessarily. A lawyer may well advise his client to clam up, even if the client is innocent. Silence is not an admission of guilt. Demanding a reply is the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent.

Maybe that is the way things run in your country, but we don't do things here that way. We insist of proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law before we convict someone. I'm happy with that standard, and would be even happier if you would keep your own standards to your own society.
Kudos to you, that was a very good answer to my question. What about this case in particular though? I understand why people may want to do it in general now, but why would the IT guy plead the fifth after being granted immunity?

(22-06-2016 11:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I cannot think of one American who has asked you for your opinion on our election. That should tell you something.
Will all due respect, all it tells me is that you haven't been paying attention. The last time someone asked me for my opinion on it was just a few minutes ago. Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 11:59 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 10:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But usually immunity deals are not offered unless one is building an indictment case against a bigger fish.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

Ah, I see. The case hasn't been fully investigated, by this very admission, yet you and Vosur have already made up your minds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
23-06-2016, 12:00 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 11:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 09:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I made no claims about your judicial systems, I asked a legitimate question. Don't you think it's strange for a person who has been granted immunity to refuse to answer any and all questions on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves? Consider

It's even stranger when someone who is ignorant of the law here to impute guilt upon another person based on the first person's 5th Amendment plea.

Your question isn't "legitimate", because your premise (a subordinate's plea equates to a superior's guilt) is simply slipshod thinking.

You're supposed to be smarter than this.
Save the condescension for someone else. Both you and BnW are attacking a claim I have never made, namely that his refusal to testify means that Clinton is guilty. Go ahead and quote me if you believe that I said those words.

The only reason I even brought it up was because Girly asserted that there are no signs of a coming indictment.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 12:04 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record



NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
23-06-2016, 12:09 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 10:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Surely some of the 125 question that were asked him were within the scope of the deal. This clown didn't want to answer anything that's all.

But usually immunity deals are not offered unless one is building an indictment case against a bigger fish.




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
23-06-2016, 12:15 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 12:24 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 12:00 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The only reason I even brought it up was because Girly asserted that there are no signs of a coming indictment.

Am I wrong? You see signs of a coming indictment? I mean since you're a fascist living in Prague I am extremely interested in your opinion on US Politics. Nate Silver needs to start considering likely voter polls from the Czech Republic.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 12:29 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 10:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Pfffft.... Merkel. ..... suck on my balls, they're big and salty and brown ,,,,




For future reference, anyone who ever posts this classic vid will always get a like from me, because, well, salty balls, Isaac Hayes who is a badass mofo, and reasons (not the EWF jam, by the way, as great as it is).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
23-06-2016, 12:32 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 09:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  ...
Thanks for proving my point about your ego preventing you from ever admitting to being wrong, I guess.

His sig didn't give that away 4 years ago?

Pay attention!

Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: