What always amazes me is how someone can walk free after 'standing his ground' in most of the cases, but if a victim of domestic violence shoots its attacker it's often facing a very harsh penalty.
Stand your ground laws exist in some places, but ironically, there would need to be better examples of these crimes happening in the same place to say there's definitely some sort of uneven application of law.
There's the pretty famous example of one woman who was sentenced to something like 20 years in jail just for firing a warning shot at her "boyfriend", yet you had Zimmerman walk free. I think they brought her case up around then because they both happened in Florida. But that being said, the whole Zimmerman case didn't involve police either.
@xi0 Ya i think i know which case you mean. Didn't help that the woman who fired the warning shot was Black.
I know stand your ground rules only apply to some states, but the disparity of how these cases are persecuted and how self defense in domestic violence is often ruled is sickening in some cases.
@xi0 Ya i think i know which case you mean. Didn't help that the woman who fired the warning shot was Black.
I know stand your ground rules only apply to some states, but the disparity of how these cases are persecuted and how self defense in domestic violence is often ruled is sickening in some cases.
I mean, you can easily press that arrow to see what I'm quoting before trying to bless me with your "points". But since I like you I'm watching your video, and I'll tell you what, if anything, it tells me. So far 12/16 minutes and I'm not seeing the point. Most of the video is a bunch of insults, the rest few percent is him basically saying he finds Trump to be talking much less presidential than Clinton, as well as like 1-2 examples of something stupid Trump said.
Otherwise, I don't see your point. Clinton is much better at talking to audiences, since she's been in politics forever and talked in so many events. But Trump's...silly antics are quite refreshing in a world where every politician talks the way Clinton does so there is some appeal.
Otherwise, I don't see your point. Clinton is much better at talking to audiences, since she's been in politics forever and talked in so many events. But Trump's...silly antics are quite refreshing in a world where everyone talks the way Clinton does so there is some appeal.
His mind, or at least, how he suggests it works, is fatally flawed.
I mean, just ask people in the Philippines whether silly antics and heads of state mix well. I'm not really talking about entertainment value...in fact, I'd rather politics be as boring as humanly possible. That way plebs wouldn't feel obligated to make decisions on things they refuse to even attempt to understand.
His mind, or at least, how he suggests it works, is fatally flawed.
I mean, just ask people in the Philippines whether silly antics and heads of state mix well. I'm not really talking about entertainment value...in fact, I'd rather politics be as boring as humanly possible. That way plebs wouldn't feel obligated to make decisions on things they refuse to even attempt to understand.
His mind, or at least, how he suggests it works, is fatally flawed.
I mean, just ask people in the Philippines whether silly antics and heads of state mix well. I'm not really talking about entertainment value...in fact, I'd rather politics be as boring as humanly possible. That way plebs wouldn't feel obligated to make decisions on things they refuse to even attempt to understand.
I like it when people use the word plebs. I want to do away with the stigma of using that word
Anyway: Yes, politics should not be flashy. But people demand it to be. Elseways, politicians get accused of 'ruling over their head' when they just silently work out on details of important questions instead of making a big show and shouting WE WILL HAVE JOOOOOBS! JOOOOOOOOBS!!!!
I think I will open a thread about this because this is a global problem, but it IS alarming that reps choose party loyality over common sense in this election (not all reps, but many).
I think I will open a thread about this because this is a global problem, but it IS alarming that reps choose party loyality over common sense in this election (not all reps, but many).
I won't link the video here, but one of the pundit channels I watch made a point of this after last night's debate as well. If you mention a stance on ANY issue, you can almost perfectly predict what else this imaginary person would also believe.
...and that itself is incredibly fucked up, just in concept.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I mean, it might not be a completely apples to apples comparison, but you see the outrage on the Left in regard to Trump's sexual improprieties. Where was this attitude when Bill Clinton was in office? GOP loyalists are now making the same excuses Dems did all those years ago as well. It's almost laughable...
I won't link the video here, but one of the pundit channels I watch made a point of this after last night's debate as well. If you mention a stance on ANY issue, you can almost perfectly predict what else this imaginary person would also believe.
...and that itself is incredibly fucked up, just in concept.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I mean, it might not be a completely apples to apples comparison, but you see the outrage on the Left in regard to Trump's sexual improprieties. Where was this attitude when Bill Clinton was in office? GOP loyalists are now making the same excuses Dems did all those years ago as well. It's almost laughable...
Now i do see big differences between bill clinton and trump.
Bill is a womanizer who had extramarital affairs, but he didnt shame women in public and he had a (for the standards of the time) progressive stance on feminist issues. As i said i don't not believe the claims that he raped anyone. He had affairs, and he didn't take them into the public by free will.
Trump however wants to ban abortion and more than once proveably harmed or shunned women in his career.
A court also allowed his divorce from Ivanka on grounds of his 'cruel and inhuman treatement' of her. The only reason Ivanka may not say he raped her (which she does by other words) is because rape between spuses did not count in that time and state and was threatened by trumps lawyer for saying it.
At best, he mistreated her emotionally, and his treatment of women over time is definitely worse than anything bill clinton has proveably done.
I can follow the logic of not believing a rape or abuse claim against someone who seemed to have a rather respectful relationship with women but believing one of a guy who did the exact opposite.
That said: I honest to god couldn't find anything in the comments that people were outraged over that i would have been outraged about.
Everything he said can be interpreted by a metaphor. I mean, when he said 'he moved onto her', he clarified that he wen tout shopping with her and bought her expensive stuff. He didnt mean he forced her.
Then his comment about him not being able to help it to kiss women. That's bullshit of course, but that still does not mean he means he can or has abused anyone. I could still interpret that at just bullshit talk between men. How many man say stuff like 'if you#re a bad boy, you can treat women like you want?'
Many. It is not presidential, but when was trump ever presidential?
Trump said much worse things about women, and (unlike what he said in the debate), it was not just words. He has also done bad things to women, in a professional or even physical/psychological sense.
And unlike in Bill clinton's case, it is proveable that he did.
What did people exspect a guy like that to say behind closed doors?
It's not necessarily about the attitude being 100% justified. Regardless of particulars, I still see where there is room for some comparison between the two in this matter, at least.
The problem to me is the prevailing thought appears to be wholly and completely hypocritical when comparing. And it's the same with many issues IMO. It's totally symptomatic of the issue with party loyalty.
It's not necessarily about the attitude being 100% justified. Regardless of particulars, I still see where there is room for some comparison between the two in this matter, at least.
The problem to me is the prevailing thought appears to be wholly and completely hypocritical when comparing. And it's the same with many issues IMO. It's totally symptomatic of the issue with party loyalty.
I really disagree here.
Firstly, in the last 24 years, democrats in fact had the better candidates. There definitely is party loyality, but i wouldnt see it in the presidential election.
I can understand why someone does not care if a perfectly fine president has an extramarital affair.
Hell Hollande cheated on his longterm girlfriend too and he is still in office as a worse statesman.
I don't see the bias here. You can accuse feminists who usually go the route of 'she said he raped so he did rape' stance. Those were reluctant to accuse the progressive clinton, alright. But the normal people?
These cases are so very different that judging them differently makes complete sense to me.
If you do not actually believe that clinton raped anyone, he has provably harassed or belittled women.
Cheating on your wife can certainly be seen as a character flaw, but it can hardly be seen as being aggressive or sexist towards women.
A man who cheats on his wife can be seen as ammoral, but i would not see how this would affect his effectiveness as a president.
However, a man who has a track record of actually harming women and holding very hostile and sexists attitudes towards them is definitely affected in his policy making. And that's without the rumours (which also exist about trump taping a child, but i agree that we cannot take unproven rumors). That's just going by the facts.
Ted cruz is one of the few individuals who i have a hard time feeling sorry for.
Because you know that when he had the chance, he'd screw people over double as hard as he is screwed now.
A man who cheats on his wife can be seen as ammoral, but i would not see how this would affect his effectiveness as a president.
However, a man who has a track record of actually harming women and holding very hostile and sexists attitudes towards them is definitely affected in his policy making. And that's without the rumours (which also exist about trump taping a child, but i agree that we cannot take unproven rumors). That's just going by the facts.
The tape is gross obviously, but there's still no proof of him doing anything like that, no? Just rumors, like with Bill. So to say that it effects his policy making is just conjecture. That's his doing of course, and the major fault with him (or his appeal, depending on who your ask :rolleyes)...he can say whatever he wants, but he's never actually had to be on record as a policy-maker, as he's never been one.
I'd take Bill Clinton over Trump any day of the week, but that doesn't mean this particular issue isn't evidence of both sides talking out of both sides of their mouths. This isn't a comparison of Trump and Bill necessarily, only the attitudes and reactions of those that are staunchly GOP or Dem. It's not a perfect comparison, but I still see it as them not applying the same set of standards when it comes to the people they agree with vs people they don't.
The tape is gross obviously, but there's still no proof of him doing anything like that, no? Just rumors, like with Bill. So to say that it effects his policy making is just conjecture. That's his doing of course, and the major fault with him (or his appeal, depending on who your ask :rolleyes)...he can say whatever he wants, but he's never actually had to be on record as a policy-maker, as he's never been one.
I'd take Bill Clinton over Trump any day of the week, but that doesn't mean this particular issue isn't evidence of both sides talking out of both sides of their mouths. This isn't a comparison of Trump and Bill necessarily, only the attitudes and reactions of those that are staunchly GOP or Dem. It's not a perfect comparison, but I still see it as them not applying the same set of standards when it comes to the people they agree with vs people they don't.
Well, even if much of what is being said about trump is conjecture (I am not so sure that is the case) as with bill, I would still argue trump is much worst in many ways to the point where they are at best barely comparable. It's not like we just now learned trump treats women like objects. The last audios are merely fall in line with everything else trump has said about woman over time. Take the time he said he would have sex with his daughter (if she wasn't her daughter). Take what he said that former miss universe. Take what he said about clinton not looking presidential (we all know what he meant). Look at everything else he has said. Giving him the same benefit of doubt as bill, the guy still comes of as a creepy old man who thinks of women as things that either serve to sex him up or otherwise, in his mind, lust over him (his money specifically). What trump said is by no means "locker room talk", given the facts we know what he said is completely consistent with who he is. With bill all the women in question at least consented to everything (well, except one but there really is no way to prove bill is guilty of anything at this point).
Well, even if much of what is being said about trump is conjecture (I am not so sure that is the case) as with bill, I would still argue trump is much worst in many ways to the point where they are at best barely comparable. It's not like we just now learned trump treats women like objects. The last audios are merely fall in line with everything else trump has said about woman over time. Take the time he said he would have sex with his daughter (if she wasn't her daughter). Take what he said that former miss universe. Take what he said about clinton not looking presidential (we all know what he meant). Look at everything else he has said. Giving him the same benefit of doubt as bill, the guy still comes of as a creepy old man who thinks of women as things that either serve to sex him up or otherwise, in his mind, lust over him (his money specifically). What trump said is by no means "locker room talk", given the facts we know what he said is completely consistent with who he is. With bill all the women in question at least consented to everything (well, except one but there really is no way to prove bill is guilty of anything at this point).
I had a longer response, but I don't feel like appearing to be too far on that side of the argument. Maybe it was some sort of contrarian impulse, idk. I just have a hard time appreciating what the staunchest supporters of either Trump or Clinton have to say on this issue. You can't take the worst that's been said for one and shrug it off, but harp on it for the other just because you disagree with them politically. And both sides are guilty of it to some degree, no doubt. That is just cringeworthy to me, almost as much as me feeling like I needed to defend this bullshit artist...:donotwant
The one who has a cavalcade of delusional D-list celebrities who hitched their wagons to him years ago go on tv to defend him? Even his own running-mate did the same bullshit in his debate with Kaine, so...
I had a longer response, but I don't feel like appearing to be too far on that side of the argument. Maybe it was some sort of contrarian impulse, idk. I just have a hard time appreciating what the staunchest supporters of either Trump or Clinton have to say on this issue. You can't take the worst that's been said for one and shrug it off, but harp on it for the other just because you disagree with them politically. And both sides are guilty of it to some degree, no doubt. That is just cringeworthy to me, almost as much as me feeling like I needed to defend this bullshit artist...:donotwant
Well, my point is by no means that bill is innocent here. But it's one thing to say neither is a saint (which they aren't), and it is another entirely different one to say they are comparable (which they also aren't). It's true that either side harps on whichever thing depending on political convenience however I would still make the point that what we know for a fact about trump is simply worst than what we know for a fact about bill (of course, if you believe everything that has been said about bill (and hillary) then even satan is a saint next to them.....).
Well, he stopped just short of removing his endorsing. Certainly he already sold out by endorsing trump to begin with and that won't go away even if he actually removes his endorsement of trump. I do think this is just a start. I could see him effecively removing his endorsement if things continue to go south. He will probably withhold that as much as he conceivably can considering that even if he does not believe trump can win he probably does not want to be remembered as the guy who actually put the last nail on trump's chances at the presidency.
You know what the best part about this is? Ted Cruz, asshole extraordinaire. 2 weeks ago he endorsed trump and now republicans are slowly removing the endorsement.... I am actually close to feeling sorry for the guy (but it is still hilarious).
He will not remove his endorsement of Trump, I don't think anything will ever make Ryan take back his endorsement unless Trump shows signs of favoring or giving power to democrats somehow. I'm pretty sure the only reason he's endorsing Trump is because Trump is a republican, and it doesn't matter if he would be the last nail on the coffin or the criticism he gets, he will back Trump up. It's unfortunate, but that's how I see it. I think that's the main reason why many GOPs who are offended by Trump continue to endorse him, simply because republican.
I will never feel sorry for him and Christwatie. I hope theirs, Jindal, and Fiorina's political careers are ruined forever.
Republicans and conservatives always blame media and call it liberal, even though I don't see the media being liberal at all.
A lot of cases have been. But it doesn't change that trying to prove someone is guilty of murder is already a daunting task, let alone when they're walking around with a gun and trained to use it. There's also examples with insufficient evidence or people resisting arrest leading to physical altercations where a gun ends up being used. I mean, to me, if you resist arrest, you're being unjustifiably reckless with your own well-being, regardless of any other factors. Keep in mind, it's never up to a suspect whether they deserve to be arrested or not. Yet, you have people acting like they have a say in that, interacting recklessly with people who carry firearms and betting on them not to use them, simply because they may not be armed with one themselves. But how could any cop know that? Just think about how atrociously unconcerned with self-preservation one needs to be to come into physical contact with a cop? It's not up to a cop to be the best hand-to-hand fighter in the county. Maybe in a perfect world, it should be. In a perfect world, maybe even cops don't need to carry guns...but I don't think we live in that world.
The main caveat here is that I don't know what it's like to be a minority who feels unjustifiably targeted by the police. But I don't know what it's like to be a cop either. With that being said, there is a difference between murder and malfeasance. I realize we're not talking about specific cases though, that usually results in more useful discussion, I guess.
There is something fishy when cameras stop working, and when stories don't really add up, and third party camera. Eric Garner's choker should have been fired, at the very least, but if I recall, I don't think he was. More often than not, I still can't see guns being needed, especially against unarmed and/or naked blacks who have mental issues. Like, I wouldn't feel bad at all if a suspect got shot after pulling out a gun, but to shoot someone who declared he had a permit to carry and then shooting him when he reached for his license? That's suspicious - if he wanted to shoot the cop, why would he warn the cop that he had a gun?
I have no problem with cops carrying guns, I only have a problem with them resorting to it so many times and so unnecessarily. Resisting arrest doesn't warrant shooting someone unless they get dangerously violent. Someone running from a cop shouldn't get shot six fucking times, in the back.
Neither do I, honestly. I can get an idea of what it's like to be a cop, and it's likely hard and uncomfortable when you're walking up to a driver who was pulled over for speeding, but still... to resort to shooting someone who warned you that he has a gun? To put someone in the back of a van, drive recklessly, and then claim weeks later you did it because he had a weapon on him, which is a bullshit justification? But then again, an officer who pointed his gun at a suspect got killed, and a popular officer with the community got blasted by someone with a gun.
I won't link the video here, but one of the pundit channels I watch made a point of this after last night's debate as well. If you mention a stance on ANY issue, you can almost perfectly predict what else this imaginary person would also believe.
...and that itself is incredibly fucked up, just in concept.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I mean, it might not be a completely apples to apples comparison, but you see the outrage on the Left in regard to Trump's sexual improprieties. Where was this attitude when Bill Clinton was in office? GOP loyalists are now making the same excuses Dems did all those years ago as well. It's almost laughable...
Ugh, if it was Bill vs. Trump, I'd probably not vote. Or at least, I'd probably not vote for Bill.
speaking of which, has Bush had any scandals? I can't remember any. If he didn't, then we had sixteen years of no scandals, which either candidate will definitely break, and broke during the campaign.
