All the pretty little anons

[rpanonmod]

Rundown: rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme. Your unfunny, forced memes also fall under this rule.
Do not treat this comm like your personal therapist. Threads about nonfictional suicide, self injury, rape, and abuse will be deleted. There are better resources out there for you.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.
Shut up about Tumblr. If it's not a discussion about Tumblr RP it will be deleted.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Navigate:

LATEST PAGE | GAME DISCUSSIONS | CANON DISCUSSIONS | HTML/GRAPHIC HELP

ATP/ENABLE ME | GAME ADVERTISEMENTS | PB SUGGESTIONS | USERNAME SUGGESTIONS

GAME IDEAS | CHARACTER ADVICE | RP WITH ME | TEST DRIVES

Comments

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

I'm ashamed that someone having a treason investigation and hearing on them was even allowed to throw their hat into the ring

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

go back to breitbart

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

I love that he tried to smear her with an article about how she punched a kid for not taking protecting some baby rabbits tho

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

get off the meme mari

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

i'll take someone undergoing a "treason" """"investigation"""" over a man who has actually raped women and preyed on children and their racist running mates who wanted to use planned parenthood funds for gay conversion camps.

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

and clinton has defended and gotten rapists out of jail your point?

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

public defenders have to do that or they violate the law, regardless of what they believe about the client's guilt.

[(Anonymous)]

actually you're half-right with that. there was a clear case in 1975 where she defended a sex offender by request and wasn't assigned to the case. then went on radio and basically shit all over women's rights.

link is here if you want to listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEJQf0DDZxc

i'm not saying that people can't change their stances, personalities, etc over long periods of time bc i can clearly understand that we are a product of the time we live in, but it's also not honest to try and forget the past either. independent here, and tbh, i hate both clinton and trump about equally.

[(Anonymous)]

she was obliged by the court. that makes her the court appointed defense for that case. that's the definition of assignment.

she also never laughed at the victim, like trump et all are trying to say.

you're not being an independent by buying into bullshit alt-right rhetoric.

[(Anonymous)]

did you even listen to the youtube link or are you going of leaning-left rhetoric? the things she says in it are kind of terrifying.

[(Anonymous)]

Hillary from her 2003 biography:

"[Prosecuting attorney Mahlon Gibson] called me to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer. [Prosecutor Mahlon] Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me. I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request."

Mahlon Gibson in a Newsday article in 2008:

On May 21, 1975, Tom Taylor rose in court to demand that Washington County Judge Maupin Cummings allow him to fire his male court-appointed lawyer in favor of a female attorney. Taylor, who earned a meager wage at a paper bag factory and lived with relatives, had already spent 10 days in the county jail and was grasping for a way to avoid a 30 years-to-life term in the state penitentiary for rape.

Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.

“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.

Sources as far as 13 years back state that she was assigned the case. As a public defender, she doesn't really have much choice, and didn't deny a man's constitutional right to counsel.

Even in the video you posted, the news caster emphasizes that she was assigned to this man, not that she chose him herself.

As for the Clinton Tapes, I've watched them a few times already but went ahead and rewatched them again just now through that video you posted. I'm going to break this down into a list to make it easier:

1) I'm not sure where Clinton had shit all over women's rights? Especially in regard to how things were in 1975. We've come a long way since then, as a nation we've grown and changed our viewpoints on women's rights, victims of sex crimes, and so forth.

2) If you're talking about her laughing, she was laughing at the fact that a man she felt was guilty had passed a polygraph, which destroyed her faith in polygraphs. That's laughable, in a very sad way. And she did still have to defend him, even knowing he wasn't innocent. The world isn't Phoenix Wright, where a grand majority of the people accused of crimes didn't actually do them. She didn't need to have a blind faith in her client's goodness. She just needed to do her job. She did. It's also clear, at least from what I hear, that her laughing at her "miscarriage of justice" remark was her laughing at the joke and wording, not the situation. Certainly not at the victim.

3) Hillary was not the one to assert that the victim made up a rape story because she "enjoyed fantasizing about older men-" it was actually a child psychology expert who said this. Clinton actually had the victim undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether that was valid or not.

4) In the tape she said that she plea bargained the case down because the prosecution had no evidence, because the lab had thrown out the scrap of the underwear they'd cut out that had evidence on it. She even took it to someone else to have them test the remainder of the underwear to see if anything could be proven without the piece that had been removed. There wasn't. So, they plead the case down. A majority of rape cases in the absence of concrete evidence end up this way. There's a good chance that had the trial continued, it would end up inconclusive or the defendant would actually go free. With the guilty plea he ended up being given a sentence of five years, of which the judge suspended four and allowed him to count the two months served in county jail as part of the year. I'd also like to note that the victim and her family were the ones who asked for a plea bargain, to avoid having to testify.

If you've not watched the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

A lot of what's missing in the video you posted is the full context.

As someone who is a feminist first and a Democrat second, I do fail to see where she shat all over women's rights. She did her job, she upheld the Constitution, she double-checked evidence, did a polygraph, had the victim evaluated, and agreed to a plea bargain to avoid having to go to trial. I'm really not seeing where she did wrong, here.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

The only thing I can see that she did wrong was not live by TV rules where good people don't have to defend guilty rapists.

[(Anonymous)]

independent here, and tbh, i hate both clinton and trump about equally.

ahh, a representative from the south parkian assholes delegation.

[(Anonymous)]

uh nope. she was assigned the case and that has been proved.

[(Anonymous)]

>1975

she was a kid and has changed and has flat out said she's changed her mind. she started out a young republican man.

anything in the past 10 years? hell, 20?

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

straight republican talking points aren't very good for trolling, dude. they're way too easy to debunk.

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

that's kind of a public defender's job, you twit.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

a job that, once the case is assigned, they are legally obligated to do to the utmost of their ability. if a public defender purposefully blows a case, they commit a felony. and a public defender doesn't get to pick their cases, either.

+2

[(Anonymous)]

and it's in the lawyer's best interest to win, regardless of the guilt or innocent of their client, because to get anywhere IN law, you have to have a higher win to lose ratio. if you become a lawyer just to kibosh your own clients, you will be disbarred and held liable for it. that's the shitty part of being a public defender.

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

Not to get them out when they are already convicted.

and not to get ones out that just go back and rape again.

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

you're making it moral when it's about legality. attourney client privilege exists for a reason. a client can and often does admit to their lawyers what they did, but it is the lawyer's job to get them off or counsel them to their best advantage. like pleading guilty if there is no way they can get them off to get a lesser charge. if there is reasonable doubt, which is what the lawyer has to prove, then they are legally required to prove it. that's why they're a defender and not a prosecutor.

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

if they are selected to do so, yes, they legally have to do that. you don't get a fucking choice.

there are no morals in the legal process. it's not about what's right, it's about what is just.

what, did you think actual judiciary processes were like phoenix wright? that defenders have to "believe in their clients innocence?" that's not how it works in the real world.

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

she could have quit

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

you could quit this paltry low-effort trolling too

yet here you are

Re: THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

[(Anonymous)]

you do know that railroading happens and people who are innocent do get thrown into jail.

and also like the other anons said, it is part of their job and a public defender has no fucking say in the cases they take and it is their job to either keep their client from going to jail or get them released.