The Democrat Thread

[caulfield12]

Hmmm, did you see Hillary is playing the "woman card?" She at her last stop in Iowa stressed it's important she is the first woman to be President. Sign of her being worried a tad bit? She's going for every woman's vote in America with this stance.

 

Would you prefer she does the opposite, you get a co-President in Bill or two for the price of one?

 

Its not like Geraldine Ferraro or even Sarah Palin didn't do the same exact thing.

[caulfield12]

It screams of desperation as she didn't do it last time. I'm just hoping America wakes up and keeps her out of office. Not confident though. Brownback won re-election in Kansas just as Hilly is our next president and it's not a wise choice IMO. Demos have a great advantage with the media, etc.

 

Cancelled out by the Koch Brothers, Citizens United and the fact that corporations like Murdoch's that own most newspapers are more and more conservative in orientation.

 

In reality, the more battle-tested a candidate is with the media, the better off he or she is....look how many rose to lead the Republican primaries last cycle as temporary frontrunners before shooting themselves in the foot. Bachmann...Cain...Gingrich...Rick Perry, etc.

 

[Heads22]

Would have been interesting to see how an actual Biden candidacy would have affected things.

[Balta1701]

Confessions of a Clinton reporter, the Media's unspoken rules for covering Hillary:

1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets

 

2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.

 

3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.

 

4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family

 

5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

.....

 

 

The Clinton rules are driven by reporters' and editors' desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family's political empire. At least in that way, Republicans and the media have a common interest.

 

[Jake]

There does seem to be something about the Clintons that really brings out the worst in journalists. I think everyone knew that Bill was a philanderer from the get-go, which probably led to such intense interest, and the Lewinsky relationship just sealed the deal. The Republican surge after his election led to all kinds of other pseudo-scandals as well, which showed there was lots of public interest in shaking the Clinton tree to see what falls out.

[Jenksismyhero]

Given some of the scandals though, from Whitewater to foundation donations, to the email scandal, isn't some of that explanation self explanatory? She's got some dirt on her and everyone knows it. Of course reporters want to be the one that finds it. And of course Republicans are chomping at the bit because the country has been told for nearly two decades that she'll be the first female president.

[Balta1701]

Given some of the scandals though, from Whitewater to foundation donations, to the email scandal, isn't some of that explanation self explanatory? She's got some dirt on her and everyone knows it. Of course reporters want to be the one that finds it. And of course Republicans are chomping at the bit because the country has been told for nearly two decades that she'll be the first female president.

See the problem is...everything you mentioned was pretty much BS as a "Scandal". Some of them are "poor optics", but they're labeled as "scandals" even when they're not.

[Jenksismyhero]

See the problem is...everything you mentioned was pretty much BS as a "Scandal". Some of them are "poor optics", but they're labeled as "scandals" even when they're not.

 

Just because they were never charged in the Whitewater scandal doesn't mean there wasn't something going on there. People in direct contact with them were convicted. That's a legit scandal.

 

Her foundation and timely donations are shady political moves. Can't really be a scandal when it's all done in public, but it's still fishy.

 

The e-mail scandal is a legit scandal. She shouldn't be a candidate for that incompetence alone.

 

Benghazi was overblown and more PR dumbness than scandal.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jake]

Given some of the scandals though, from Whitewater to foundation donations, to the email scandal, isn't some of that explanation self explanatory? She's got some dirt on her and everyone knows it. Of course reporters want to be the one that finds it. And of course Republicans are chomping at the bit because the country has been told for nearly two decades that she'll be the first female president.

 

 

See the problem is...everything you mentioned was pretty much BS as a "Scandal". Some of them are "poor optics", but they're labeled as "scandals" even when they're not.

 

My general takeaway on that stuff was that it was mostly the result of shaking the Clinton tree to see what people latched onto. I don't hold Hillary or Bill in especially high esteem as people, but I'm not so sure that they are outside whatever the moral norm is for national politics.

[greg775]

There does seem to be something about the Clintons that really brings out the worst in journalists. I think everyone knew that Bill was a philanderer from the get-go, which probably led to such intense interest, and the Lewinsky relationship just sealed the deal. The Republican surge after his election led to all kinds of other pseudo-scandals as well, which showed there was lots of public interest in shaking the Clinton tree to see what falls out.

I disagree.

Hillary has the journos in her hip pocket. Their only coverage of Republican candidates is trying to get them to blast each other publicly, i.e. the Trump thing. Guys ... Trump is sort of a chump, but he wasn't trying to say all Mexicans are bad. I like the fact Cruz wouldn't bite. He said, "all the media wants us to do is blast each other; I won't go there." If Trump was a Demo there'd be no coverage of this; it'd remain all Hillary all the time. I hope you guys are ready for eight years of Hilly; she's a lock to win. Hope she leads the country back on track.

Edited July 7, 2015 by greg775

[Balta1701]

I disagree.

Hillary has the journos in her hip pocket. Their only coverage of Republican candidates is trying to get them to blast each other publicly, i.e. the Trump thing. Guys ... Trump is sort of a chump, but he wasn't trying to say all Mexicans are bad. I like the fact Cruz wouldn't bite. He said, "all the media wants us to do is blast each other; I won't go there." If Trump was a Demo there'd be no coverage of this; it'd remain all Hillary all the time. I hope you guys are ready for eight years of Hilly; she's a lock to win. Hope she leads the country back on track.

Which of course ignores "Words coming out of the journalists mouths", but anyway.

[greg775]

Which of course ignores "Words coming out of the journalists mouths", but anyway.

Yes, when Hillary gets into office, the media will try to get her if she breaks the law or has some controversy. But the big thing is they'll make sure she gets elected. And when it's time for re-election they'll do what they do and mock the Republican candidates, make sure she gets re-elected. Then they'll take a potshot or two and try to get her in trouble, but the key point of this is the media wants her to win and she will win. They wanted Obama to win and he won. It will take a rare Republican candidate to ever win again.

[Balta1701]

Yes, when Hillary gets into office, the media will try to get her if she breaks the law or has some controversy. But the big thing is they'll make sure she gets elected. And when it's time for re-election they'll do what they do and mock the Republican candidates, make sure she gets re-elected. Then they'll take a potshot or two and try to get her in trouble, but the key point of this is the media wants her to win and she will win. They wanted Obama to win and he won. It will take a rare Republican candidate to ever win again.

Which of course ignores "Words coming out of the journalists mouths", but anyway.

[greg775]

Which of course ignores "Words coming out of the journalists mouths", but anyway.

What words are coming out of their mouths? They are unanimous in going ga-ga over Hillary and her being the first woman president. They speak of the issue as if it's a done deal, which it is. Nobody else has a chance and the journos know it and say it.

[Balta1701]

Confessions of a Clinton reporter, the Media's unspoken rules for covering Hillary:

 

 

What words are coming out of their mouths? They are unanimous in going ga-ga over Hillary and her being the first woman president. They speak of the issue as if it's a done deal, which it is. Nobody else has a chance and the journos know it and say it.

 

[greg775]

I just don't agree with that article. YES most definitely the media want to bring down Hillary ONCE she is in the oval office as first woman president. They have no interest in bringing her down now before the election. Look nobody can deny the media abhor Republicans. They do not want a Republican president and will make sure Hilly gets the nod.

Once she is in, sure they'd love to go after her and finally get her for good. There's no way the media can be considered a problem for Hilly before the election. The media despises Republicans, I'm sure Balta would agree with that.

Edited July 12, 2015 by greg775

[Balta1701]

I just don't agree with that article. YES most definitely the media want to bring down Hillary ONCE she is in the oval office as first woman president. They have no interest in bringing her down now before the election. Look nobody can deny the media abhor Republicans. They do not want a Republican president and will make sure Hilly gets the nod.

Once she is in, sure they'd love to go after her and finally get her for good. There's no way the media can be considered a problem for Hilly before the election. The media despises Republicans, I'm sure Balta would agree with that.

Which of course ignores "Words coming out of the journalists mouths", but anyway

[greg775]

Which of course ignores "Words coming out of the journalists mouths", but anyway

That article was bogus and you probably know it. Show me some more. Are you honestly going to tell me Hilary has a media problem BEFORE the election? Tell me, "I Balta think Hillary is getting a bad shake from the media and it figures to hurt her campaign."

You can't believe that.

Sure when she's in office they'll try to nail her to the wall especially if she plays mean with the media. It's going to be hard for her to hide her (allegedly) b-itxxx personality if she gets elected and has to deal with the media daily.

Edited July 12, 2015 by greg775

[Balta1701]

That article was bogus and you probably know it. Show me some more. Are you honestly going to tell me Hilary has a media problem BEFORE the election? Tell me, "I Balta think Hillary is getting a bad shake from the media and it figures to hurt her campaign."

You can't believe that.

Sure when she's in office they'll try to nail her to the wall especially if she plays mean with the media. It's going to be hard for her to hide her (allegedly) b-itxxx personality if she gets elected and has to deal with the media daily.

Yes, I think she has a media problem...and it's people like you who are the reason that problem exists. People like you who are poised to believe the worst about her no matter what, not because of anything other than how it feels. People like you are way too poised to believe the worst about her based on innuendo and rumor and then ignore the racist rants by the people you're thrilled about for their "honesty", and there's a giant community of media happy to sell you that. They'll look at everything she says with a fine toothed comb and then when your beloved Trump goes on a completely BS rant about how people who look different than you are all criminals you get to just say "oh that's just the media selling Hillary" when he's called on it.

[greg775]

Yes, I think she has a media problem...and it's people like you who are the reason that problem exists. People like you who are poised to believe the worst about her no matter what, not because of anything other than how it feels. People like you are way too poised to believe the worst about her based on innuendo and rumor and then ignore the racist rants by the people you're thrilled about for their "honesty", and there's a giant community of media happy to sell you that. They'll look at everything she says with a fine toothed comb and then when your beloved Trump goes on a completely BS rant about how people who look different than you are all criminals you get to just say "oh that's just the media selling Hillary" when he's called on it.

 

I think Trump thinks there's a problem with people crossing the borders and he truly thinks many of the people crossing are bad actors. He said he's sure some/many of them are good people. I'm not completely sold on Trump, I just like the fact he talks real talk and doesnt back down. The PC police always come out swinging and some of these people who make one mistake, one comment that is blown out of proportion, have their lives ruined. I like when guys like Trump/Limbaugh basically say, "f*** you. I said it and you are exaggerating it."

As far as Hillary, I don't like her. If she changes my opinion in coming months, then good for her. I do not think the media is after her, because I believe the media has a bias for Democrats/liberals and they despise Republicans.

[StrangeSox]

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh is serializing a recent law article by Judge Alex Kozinski that examines various problems in our criminal legal system. I've only read the first two parts, but so far it's been good:

 

12 reasons to worry about our criminal justice system, from a prominent conservative federal judge

 

Although we pretend otherwise, much of what we do in the law is guesswork. For example, we like to boast that our criminal justice system is heavily tilted in favor of criminal defendants because we’d rather that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted. There is reason to doubt it, because very few criminal defendants actually go free after trial.

 

Does this mean that many guilty men are never charged because the prosecution is daunted by its heavy burden of proof? Or is it because jurors almost always start with a strong presumption that someone wouldn’t be charged with a crime unless the police and the prosecutor were firmly convinced of his guilt? We tell ourselves and the public that it’s the former and not the latter, but we have no way of knowing. They say that any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It may be that a decent prosecutor could get a petit jury to convict a eunuch of rape.

 

The “ten guilty men” aphorism is just one of many tropes we assimilate long before we become lawyers. How many of us, the author included, were inspired to go to law school after watching Juror #8 turn his colleagues around by sheer force of reason and careful dissection of the evidence? “If that’s what the law’s about, then I want to be a lawyer!” I thought to myself.

 

But is it? We know very little about this because very few judges, lawyers and law professors have spent significant time as jurors. In fact, much of the so-called wisdom that has been handed down to us about the workings of the legal system, and the criminal process in particular, has been undermined by experience, legal scholarship and common sense. Here are just a few examples:

1. Eyewitnesses are highly reliable. This belief is so much part of our culture that one often hears talk of a “mere” circumstantial case as contrasted to a solid case based on eyewitness testimony. In fact, research shows that eyewitness identifications are highly unreliable, especially where the witness and the perpetrator are of different races. Eyewitness reliability is further compromised when the identification occurs under the stress of a violent crime, an accident or catastrophic event — which pretty much covers all situations where identity is in dispute at trial. In fact, mistaken eyewitness testimony was a factor in more than a third of wrongful conviction cases. Yet, courts have been slow in allowing defendants to present expert evidence on the fallibility of eyewitnesses; many courts still don’t allow it. Few, if any, courts instruct juries on the pitfalls of eyewitness identification or caution them to be skeptical of eyewitness testimony.

5. Human memories are reliable. Much of what we do in the courtroom relies on human memory. When a witness is asked to testify about past events, the accuracy of his account depends not only on his initial perception, but on the way the memories are recorded, stored and retrieved. For a very long time, it was believed that stored memories were much like video tape or film — an accurate copy of real-word experience that might fade with the passage of time or other factors, but could not be distorted or embellished.

 

Science now tells us that this view of human memory is fundamentally flawed. The mind not only distorts and embellishes memories, but a variety of external factors can affect how memories are retrieved and described. In an early study by cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, people were shown videos of car accidents and then questioned about what they saw. The group asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other estimated 6.5 mph faster than the group asked how fast the cars were going when they “hit” each other. A week later, almost a third of those who were asked about the “smash” recalled seeing broken glass, even though there was none. [Footnote: Professor Loftus has shown it is even possible to manufacture false memories. For example, she gave students each a packet describing three real childhood memories and a false one, and told the students that all four memories were real and took place with a close family member. In follow-up interviews asking the students to describe their memories, 7 of 24 students remembered the false event in their packet and some added their own details to that false memory. Loftus was also able to convince participants in another experiment that they’d experienced traumatic events that never happened, such as witnessing drug busts and breaking windows with their hands.]

6. Confessions are infallible because innocent people never confess. We now know that this is not true. Innocent people do confess with surprising regularity. Harsh interrogation tactics, a variant of Stockholm syndrome, the desire to end the ordeal, emotional and financial exhaustion, family considerations and the youth or feeble-mindedness of the suspect can result in remarkably detailed confessions that are later shown to be utterly false.

8. Prosecutors play fair. The Supreme Court has told us in no uncertain terms that a prosecutor’s duty is to do justice, not merely to obtain a conviction. It has also laid down some specific rules about how prosecutors, and the people who work for them, must behave — principal among them that the prosecution turn over to the defense exculpatory evidence in the possession of the prosecution and the police.

 

There is reason to doubt that prosecutors comply with these obligations fully. The U.S. Justice Department, for example, takes the position that exculpatory evidence must be produced only if it is material. This puts prosecutors in the position of deciding whether tidbits that could be helpful to the defense are significant enough that a reviewing court will find it to be material, which runs contrary to the philosophy of the Brady/Giglio line of cases and increases the risk that highly exculpatory evidence will be suppressed. Beyond that, we have what I have described elsewhere as an “epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land,” a phrase that has caused much controversy but brought about little change in the way prosecutors operate in the United States.

12. Long sentences deter crime. In the United States, we have over 2.2 million people behind bars. Our rate of approximately 716 prisoners per 100,000 people is the highest in the world, over 5 times higher than that of other industrialized nations like Canada, England, Germany and Australia. Sentences for individual crimes are also far longer than in other developed countries. For example, an individual convicted of burglary in the United States serves an average of 16 months in prison, compared with 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England. And the average prison sentence for assault in the United States is 60 months, compared to under 20 months in England, Australia and Finland.

 

Incarceration is an immensely expensive enterprise. It is expensive for the taxpayers, as the average cost of housing a single prisoner for one year is approximately $30,000. A 20-year sentence runs into something like $600,000 in prison costs alone. Long sentences are also immensely hard on prisoners and cruel to their families, as it’s usually very difficult for a prisoner to re-integrate into his family and community after very long prison sentences.

 

We are committed to a system of harsh sentencing because we believe that long sentences deter crime and, in any event, incapacitate criminals from victimizing the general population while they are in prison. And, indeed, the United States is enjoying an all-time low in violent crime rates, which would seem to support this intuition.

 

But crime rates have been dropping steadily since the 1990s, and not merely in the United States but throughout the industrialized world. Our intuition about harsh sentences deterring crime may thus be misguided. [Footnote: Nor does putting more people behind bars necessarily lead to less crime. A recent report by the Brennan Center reveals that “incarceration has been decreasing[ly effective] as a crime fighting tactic since at least 1980,” as increased incarceration has had “no observable effect” on the nationwide decline in violent crimes in the 1990s and 2000s. A recent study points to “prosecutors — more than cops, judges, or legislators — as the principal drivers of the increase in the prison population,” explaining that “[t]he real change is in the chances that a felony arrest by the police turns into a felony case brought by prosecutors.”]

 

We may be spending scarce taxpayer dollars maintaining the largest prison population in the industrialized world, shattering countless lives and families, for no good reason. As with much else in the law, the connection between punishment and deterrence remains mysterious. We make our decisions based on faith.

[StrangeSox]

Judge Kozinski on wrongful convictions and excessively long sentences

 

What I have listed above are some of the reasons to doubt that our criminal justice system is fundamentally just. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, nor is it clear that all of these uncertainties would, on closer examination, be resolved against the current system. But there are enough doubts on a broad range of subjects touching intimately on the integrity of the system that we should be concerned.

 

The National Registry of Exonerations has recorded 1576 exonerations in the United States since 1989. [Footnote: Of these exonerated individuals, 112 were sentenced to death, and 265 spent more than 20 years behind bars. The average time spent in prison was 9 years, with 40 percent imprisoned for more than 10 years. 80 percent were convicted by juries, 7 percent by judges and 12 percent pleaded guilty. 25 percent were exonerated at least in part by DNA evidence. The following factors contributed to their exonerations: mistaken witness identification (34% of exonerations); perjury or false accusation (55%); false confession (13%), defective or misleading forensic evidence (22%) and official misconduct (46%). Cases often involve more than one of these factors.] The year 2014 alone saw a record high of 125 exonerations, up from 91 the year before, and there is reason to believe the trend will continue. [...]

 

Their stories are the stuff of nightmares. Take, for example, Gloria Killian, a 30-something former law student who had signed up to do freelance detective work for a coin shop owner. One day, an elderly coin collector was robbed and killed, and someone called the Sacramento police accusing “a law student named Gloria” of being involved. Nothing came of this accusation until a year later, when a repeat felon named Gary Masse was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life without parole. He named Killian as his accomplice and claimed she masterminded the robbery. The accusation stuck, and Killian was convicted of conspiracy and murder, and sentenced to 32 years to life. Masse got his sentence reduced to 25 years.

 

Over a decade later, a new investigation uncovered evidence that Masse had entered into an agreement with prosecutors to testify against Killian in exchange for leniency — a fact never disclosed to the defense. The investigation also turned up a letter Masse sent to the DA soon after Killian was sentenced, in which he wrote, “I lied my ass off for you people.” A panel of our court reversed Killian’s conviction in 2002, at which point she had already lost 16 years of her life to prison. The prosecutor walked away with an admonishment from the California State Bar.]

 

Judge Kozinski on juries

 

Judge Kozinski on prosecutorial misconduct

Edited July 17, 2015 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

So there's a mural in a courthouse in Baker County, Florida that depicts heroic Klan members. It was painted in 2001.

[greg775]

I know many (most) of you love Hillary as much as I love Danks/Buehrle and Ozzie but Cal Thomas captured how I feel about Hilly perfectly. I can't believe he's not fired for saying she's running on her gender. I'd think in this PC world that's a no-no. But Cal pointed out Hillary's flaws here and expressed how "boring" she is as well.

 

 

http://calthomas.com/columns/boring

[Balta1701]

I know many (most) of you love Hillary as much as I love Danks/Buehrle and Ozzie but Cal Thomas captured how I feel about Hilly perfectly. I can't believe he's not fired for saying she's running on her gender. I'd think in this PC world that's a no-no. But Cal pointed out Hillary's flaws here and expressed how "boring" she is as well.

 

 

http://calthomas.com/columns/boring

Seriously you're in the wrong thread. There's a Republican thread for posting stuff from people like Cal Thomas ripping Hillary.