Will watching a comedy clip explain his strange sense of entitlement?
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Der Gropenfuhrer? REALLY? HAHAHAhahaha!!!
2 Likes
It puts his statement in context.
I’ll save you the trouble of watching. He’s not being entitled, the whole thing is in the context of the political campaign of running for president. I think he’s just illustrating that relying on marijuana smokers as a political base is not a winning strategy (replying to something Triumph said about getting enough people stoned enough to vote for him, ha ha). He’s not counting on the pot smoker vote to win because clearly they aren’t donating to his campaign (if they all gave a dollar he’d have a lot, but he doesn’t have squat. By which I don’t think he’s claiming personal poverty, just poverty in the context of how much money do you need to run for president, in which its perfectly reasonable to describe several million dollars as “squat”)
It’s really not a very entertaining clip, which is too bad because I usually find Triumph very entertaining. Triumph makes some trite tired jabs, Johnson is his usual uncharismatic self and missed an easy softball lob to give a short one or two sentence summary of his version of libertarianism. I think like some people did on Colbert he misjudged the situation and tried to go along with the comedy instead of trusting that if you go along as the straight man everything comes out better for everybody in the end.
1 Like
Thank you.
I still think it’s some sort of entitlement on his part to assume that pot smokers should donate to his campaign, as if they one-dimensional people who only have a singular concern.
1 Like
25 Likes
I think the full show (with the trip to the Emmys) is pretty good, but I have a fondness for Charo.
More or less Rob hit the nail on the head on what I was getting at. The intention wasn’t to accuse you of being overtly sexist, but to bring the hammer down on what seemed to be a gender-based comparison. May shares no more similarity in policy to Clinton to, say, any other near-centrist or centrist member of DNC. So why not make the comparison to, say, Obama instead, or why make the comparison at all?
The theory I was operating on was their most similar differentiating qualities, in the context of popular rhetoric, lie in their gender. Because they are both powerful women in positions that strongly favor men. Because we talk about them far more in terms of their gender than their male counterparts. Because we qualify them by comparing them to other women (May is the new Maggie, for instance). Etc etc. All of these compound into a rhetorical framework on which your comparison seemed to lie quite nicely.
1 Like
I agree. Even the worst deserve a competent lawyer and a fair trial. Without these, the verdict is suspect.
I was just thinking it must be horrible to hold in your head two thoughts:
a) I know the POS I’m defending is guilty
b) I must work as hard as possible to defend the POS, or I might be charged**
** IANAL… maybe there is a way for good guy lawyers to plead to be released from the obligation to defend?
2 Likes
YANAL*: Lawyers may not attempt to prove a client’s innocence if they know that the client is guilty. They can still represent the client, but only to assist them in negotiating their guilty plea.
*IANAL also, but I know this much.
3 Likes
It’s not ANY defense lawyer’s job to prove a client’s innocence. It’s the prosecutor’s job to prove their client’s guilt.
16 Likes
They may not lie to the court, but they may still challenge any evidence that the state presents, attempt to establish the case that the client is guilty only of a lesser offense, attempt to establish legal defenses such as insanity, and even overturn confessions. Determining guilt or innocence is not the defender’s job. Virtually all defenses turn around the state’s having failed to prove its case, not around factual innocence.
An attorney who is a witness to a crime has a conflict of interest in either prosecuting it or defending against its accusation.
5 Likes
Tune in to your local talk radio and you will learn that they will vote Trump no matter what. He doesn’t need to have the voters support. They aren’t voting for him. They are voting against Hillary.
1 Like
Kentucky is very white, very rural, no effective democrat opposition; his seat is very safe.
2 Likes
As an aside, this does happen. Everyone has the little decals for the parts they’re running, but it’s not too uncommon to see cars running with blank hoods, i.e. no principal sponsor.
Sometimes they use the unsponsored space for statements like a breast cancer pink ribbon, or a rebel flag, or…
(Not paid for by the Trump campaign, AFAIK.)
3 Likes
Being a millionaire really isn’t that big a deal in 2016. It doesn’t mean you’re Scrooge McDuck swimming around in a giant safe full of doubloons. You qualify if you own a decent house and have several decades of retirement savings. Hell, if you’re not a millionaire when you retire, you may well be in for an uncomfortable sunset.
8 Likes
Paint jobs are expensive, but sometimes you can just modify them slightly, like covering up an ex-girfriend’s name on a tattoo.
#’‘Make America Grope Again!’’
I thought that diamond encrusted cars would be more Trump’s thing.
1 Like
You make it sound like that’s something everybody has.
5 Likes
Of course not, but a whole lot more people are millionaires today than back when the word signified Rich Uncle Pennybags and Daddy Warbucks. According to this source, slightly under 10% of the U.S. population (I can’t tell if it’s strictly individuals or if the methodology groups married couples together) were millionaires in 2013. That’s not the 0.1%, that’s not even the 1%. That’s a lot of “normal people.”
Then again, look at the curve on that graph…
5 Likes
