'Murica! (370 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
I don't either, but I figured if he's convicted of attempting to change the outcome of the election then maybe it would be covered under the 14th amendment?
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm
Might want to tell some Coloradans that
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...e-bars-trump-from-running-again-for-president
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...e-bars-trump-from-running-again-for-president
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/arts/television/danny-masterson-rape-trial-sentencing.html
I got to say I think his association with Scientology really hurt him here. It makes him go from respected actor to crazy person. Any empathy you might have had left for him disappears because of it.
Also, while I do think in general the sentences for rape are too low in Europe, they seem very high in the US. I mean 30 years to life. Jesus.
I got to say I think his association with Scientology really hurt him here. It makes him go from respected actor to crazy person. Any empathy you might have had left for him disappears because of it.
Also, while I do think in general the sentences for rape are too low in Europe, they seem very high in the US. I mean 30 years to life. Jesus.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, if they couldn't question the reliability of the evidence.. In such an old case.. And I'm sure he could afford decent lawyers.
But I was speaking more about the sentence. 30 years is a lot. And I think the association with Scientology made him look well and truly corrupted and it pointed to his actions being part of some sort of scheme. I don't know, I just think this connection was probably not a good look for him.
Kind of makes me sad that I won't be able to look at Hyde the same way though.
But I was speaking more about the sentence. 30 years is a lot. And I think the association with Scientology made him look well and truly corrupted and it pointed to his actions being part of some sort of scheme. I don't know, I just think this connection was probably not a good look for him.
Kind of makes me sad that I won't be able to look at Hyde the same way though.
California jury. He's a pos no doubt, but this case is one big joke.
https://www.thecut.com/article/everything-to-know-about-the-danny-masterson-rape-trial.html
It depends. Criminal courts are weird, and I say this as an emotionally scarred foreman. (I mean foreman of a jury, not Eric or Red.) All it takes is the defense lawyer landing one juror sympathetic to a religious cults, and the whole prosecution is shot due to unanimous decision requirements. But yeah, otherwise it could have polarized the jury. But the guy should have been able to afford a defense who had 50 ways to poke holes in that.
And remember: in real life, Fez was banging Hollywood hotties right and left. So you can't say he's the only character who didn't quite measure up to the actor.
And remember: in real life, Fez was banging Hollywood hotties right and left. So you can't say he's the only character who didn't quite measure up to the actor.
I've been on California juries. They don't convict for sh*t. I mean, look at Kamala Harris.
That said, I get where you might be coming from. White wimmin in Cali wanting to prosecute big bad male rapist culture. But there's a real personality split around there. They overwhelmingly elect white male judges in elected offices -- hoping for more convictions of them dangerous darkies that might threaten their privilege. But a California juror is very, very different from a California voter.
Most voters have no clue how the jury system works, so they feel reading a newspaper article and forming an opinion is jurisprudence. You'd be better off with Judge Joe Brown.
On a jury? People with histories of domestic abuse or weird psychoses abound. Defense attorneys know how to land them on juries and play their feeble heart strings. They frame the aggressor as a victim of sexual violence, and the resistance to convict pours out because in their own heads they're living their own The Burning Bed fantasies starring them instead of Farrah Fawcett.
Voters are completely different. And this is what the white male savior feminist allies don't get... they will be burned to the stake as much as anyone. One of my longtime friends was housemates and fellow club lacrosse players with Aaron Persky. If you don't know his story, you of all people probably should:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Persky
As long as I knew him going to law school, Aaron was a ladies-respect kind of guy. A bit of a bleeding heart liberal who stood up for women's rights and all. But all it took was the Stanford rape case of Chanel Miller, and women in Santa Clara County made him out to be as bad as the rapist for only enforcing the recommended sentence. They demonized him online, ran a campaign to recall him as a judge. The dude got railroaded. And I could tell 99% of the women who recalled him made snap judgements about him and his character from just a few paragraphs of a news clip. The guy's entire life was reduced to one decision that painted him as some rapist enabler. It was beyond a joke. Pretty much a public career lynching if ever there was one.
But those are voters. They are not the peeps in the courtroom by any means.
That said, I get where you might be coming from. White wimmin in Cali wanting to prosecute big bad male rapist culture. But there's a real personality split around there. They overwhelmingly elect white male judges in elected offices -- hoping for more convictions of them dangerous darkies that might threaten their privilege. But a California juror is very, very different from a California voter.
Most voters have no clue how the jury system works, so they feel reading a newspaper article and forming an opinion is jurisprudence. You'd be better off with Judge Joe Brown.
On a jury? People with histories of domestic abuse or weird psychoses abound. Defense attorneys know how to land them on juries and play their feeble heart strings. They frame the aggressor as a victim of sexual violence, and the resistance to convict pours out because in their own heads they're living their own The Burning Bed fantasies starring them instead of Farrah Fawcett.
Voters are completely different. And this is what the white male savior feminist allies don't get... they will be burned to the stake as much as anyone. One of my longtime friends was housemates and fellow club lacrosse players with Aaron Persky. If you don't know his story, you of all people probably should:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Persky
As long as I knew him going to law school, Aaron was a ladies-respect kind of guy. A bit of a bleeding heart liberal who stood up for women's rights and all. But all it took was the Stanford rape case of Chanel Miller, and women in Santa Clara County made him out to be as bad as the rapist for only enforcing the recommended sentence. They demonized him online, ran a campaign to recall him as a judge. The dude got railroaded. And I could tell 99% of the women who recalled him made snap judgements about him and his character from just a few paragraphs of a news clip. The guy's entire life was reduced to one decision that painted him as some rapist enabler. It was beyond a joke. Pretty much a public career lynching if ever there was one.
But those are voters. They are not the peeps in the courtroom by any means.
Last edited:
I think it came at a very bad time for him. Of course most people have hated Scientology for a long time, but at this point there have been so many scandals surrounding it that people just assume it is inherently evil.
And yeah, of course actors aren't their roles. They don't have to be either. But Hyde's laid back coolness is in such stark contrast to Masterson being a convicted rapist it hurts to look at him.
And yeah, of course actors aren't their roles. They don't have to be either. But Hyde's laid back coolness is in such stark contrast to Masterson being a convicted rapist it hurts to look at him.
Last edited:
There are a couple of things about this case that I find surprising, but the jury was presented a lot more information than we have so I'll have to assume they got it right.
What does surprise me is that Kutcher was quite vocal in his support, at least initially. I mean, why take the risk unless you really believe he did nothing wrong?
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
What does surprise me is that Kutcher was quite vocal in his support, at least initially. I mean, why take the risk unless you really believe he did nothing wrong?
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk