|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 16 2024 18:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2024 15:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 16 2024 08:32 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument. It's more strange you insist he won't acknowledge that's his argument. He's said Republicans can't be trusted in that regard, Hanlon's razor but etc. He also listed the 'shady shit' you refer to. That was a few pages back. It's been part of his argument the whole time, trying to wave it in his face as "DONT YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT" now seems pretty silly. Great, then we agree. Rehashing my point - Nobody here, except maybe DPB, fundamentally disagrees with a rule to require ballots to be received by election day in order for them to count. In fact some posters have even said it's preferred so that we can get the election results sooner. So we can skip the immaterial details of "what should the deadline be" because it's irrelevant. The argument is not that the rule is flawed, it's that Republicans are ill-intentioned. There's a pretty huge difference between setting the cutoff between when the mail is sent and when it is received. This, to me, is the central point here. If you vote before the cutoff, your vote should always count, if you vote after the cutoff, it should not. I'm up for discussing how long before the deadline it's reasonable to demand that you vote if you are going to vote by mail (well it's a boring discussion but just a figure of speech), either way I don't have a fundamental issue with saying you need to vote 2 days earlier if you are voting by mail. However, everybody who votes by that deadline needs to have their vote counted, you absolutely cannot discount votes because the count or mail service was slower than expected (tbh irrelevant whether that happens by will or by accident).
Just to add to this: If there is some logistical component to voting that prevents prompt counting of votes that occurred before the cutoff, that needs to be fixed. It means it needs to get bigger, more capable, faster, redesigned, or whatever. Its important to remember this is not a technical impossibility. It can be a grand, huge undertaking without being impossible. A proper voting system with supporting infrastructure is a minimum standard for a modern country. No one should even be discussing "what should be done about the votes that take a long time to be counted?" because the problem shouldn't even be allowed to exist. It is fundamentally gross for it to be allowed to continue for more than 1 year.
|
Id be itching to debate Trump if I thought I could string some very basic cohesive sentences together, seems like Trump's so mentally declined that any debate with him should be truly really hard to fuck up.
I'm not saying its not possible Biden fucks it up, but god damn itd be an catastrophic impressive fuck up even by Democrat standards.
|
On May 17 2024 02:15 Zambrah wrote:
Id be itching to debate Trump if I thought I could string some very basic cohesive sentences together, seems like Trump's so mentally declined that any debate with him should be truly really hard to fuck up.
I'm not saying its not possible Biden fucks it up, but god damn itd be an catastrophic impressive fuck up even by Democrat standards.
i’m failing to see any upside of a biden trump debate. it’s going to absolutely be a national embarrassment. i think either one of them putting together more than a handful of coherent sentences is a stretch goal. trump will spew his hate and bullshit. joe will fail to say anything meaningful or rebut his points. both will look weak.
going to get a lot of fodder for ‘god this guy is fucking horrible’ for both sides and nothing else. hopefully this is just cynical and I’m wrong. I would love to have something of substance happen.
i’m willing to bet throughout the night there is more than one occasion for both where Trump straight up calls Joe by the wrong name, and on the flip side, Joe just forgets Trumps name and stumbles through the sentence without it.
we are truly blessed for choice. god bless america.
|
On May 16 2024 15:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2024 08:32 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument. It's more strange you insist he won't acknowledge that's his argument. He's said Republicans can't be trusted in that regard, Hanlon's razor but etc. He also listed the 'shady shit' you refer to. That was a few pages back. It's been part of his argument the whole time, trying to wave it in his face as "DONT YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT" now seems pretty silly. Great, then we agree. Rehashing my point - Nobody here, except maybe DPB, fundamentally disagrees with a rule to require ballots to be received by election day in order for them to count. In fact some posters have even said it's preferred so that we can get the election results sooner. So we can skip the immaterial details of "what should the deadline be" because it's irrelevant. The argument is not that the rule is flawed, it's that Republicans are ill-intentioned.
Considering the only statement that is my own in the quoted post ends with "...seems pretty silly", I'm glad we can agree.
There's a bunch of other words in there that amount to you trying to connect invisible lines to something substantial, but I'm glad we agree your statement was silly. Moving on!
|
On May 17 2024 04:32 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2024 15:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 16 2024 08:32 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument. It's more strange you insist he won't acknowledge that's his argument. He's said Republicans can't be trusted in that regard, Hanlon's razor but etc. He also listed the 'shady shit' you refer to. That was a few pages back. It's been part of his argument the whole time, trying to wave it in his face as "DONT YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT" now seems pretty silly. Great, then we agree. Rehashing my point - Nobody here, except maybe DPB, fundamentally disagrees with a rule to require ballots to be received by election day in order for them to count. In fact some posters have even said it's preferred so that we can get the election results sooner. So we can skip the immaterial details of "what should the deadline be" because it's irrelevant. The argument is not that the rule is flawed, it's that Republicans are ill-intentioned. Considering the only statement that is my own in the quoted post ends with "...seems pretty silly", I'm glad we can agree. There's a bunch of other words in there that amount to you trying to connect invisible lines to something substantial, but I'm glad we agree your statement was silly. Moving on!
I meant me and DPB agree, but i'll play along so as to not take away your zinger
|
I think this is just example 837435903 of BJ saying something in the least easily understood way possible. He's not wrong. He's just wording it in a way that most people assume meant those votes shouldn't be counted. He's describing how the situation is bad, not that the system should remain as is and that those "late" votes shouldn't be counted.
I will again emphasize the mistake people make is accepting the constraints you are given of this discussion. Democrats shouldn't be advocating for votes to be counted as late as possible. Democrats should be bringing attention to the utterly dysfunctional system and highlighting how it is an embarrassment to our country to not put more effort into our voting system logistics. This should all be viewed as a huge egg on the face of our government. They should be pressured to improve the system. It is entirely achievable for all votes to be counted in 24 hours. People are letting themselves subscribe to the least ambitious possible situation.
|
On May 17 2024 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I think this is just example 837435903 of BJ saying something in the least easily understood way possible. He's not wrong. He's just wording it in a way that most people assume meant those votes shouldn't be counted. He's describing how the situation is bad, not that the system should remain as is and that those "late" votes shouldn't be counted.
.
I disagree. I think the issue is that DPB has repeatedly phrased the Nevada case as Republicans trying to throw out legal, valid votes to steal an election. If the Republicans win their lawsuit in Nevada all it does is push the voting deadline up a few days. Now ballots have to be received by election day instead of election day + 3 days. You're not throwing out valid votes received after election day because those votes are no longer valid. The idea that if Nevada's voting deadline gets overturned they will still use the same deadline then just not count the votes is nonsensical.
Framing "Republicans are trying to push the voting deadline up 3 days" as "Republicans are trying to toss out legal on-time votes" is a pretty dishonest framing. I don't suspect DPB purposefully made this bad faith framing, but rather was probably swayed by media sources that also frame it incorrectly.
Just look at how many posts are about whether or not we should count on-time ballots. Whether we should count on-time ballots was never at stake here. What's at stake in this lawsuit is whether Nevada should have their deadline at election day + 3 days or whether they should have it as election day just like the majority of other states.
|
So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perry
That is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest?
It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them.
|
On May 17 2024 13:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2024 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I think this is just example 837435903 of BJ saying something in the least easily understood way possible. He's not wrong. He's just wording it in a way that most people assume meant those votes shouldn't be counted. He's describing how the situation is bad, not that the system should remain as is and that those "late" votes shouldn't be counted.
. I disagree. I think the issue is that DPB has repeatedly phrased the Nevada case as Republicans trying to throw out legal, valid votes to steal an election. If the Republicans win their lawsuit in Nevada all it does is push the voting deadline up a few days. Now ballots have to be received by election day instead of election day + 3 days. You're not throwing out valid votes received after election day because those votes are no longer valid. The idea that if Nevada's voting deadline gets overturned they will still use the same deadline then just not count the votes is nonsensical. Framing "Republicans are trying to push the voting deadline up 3 days" as "Republicans are trying to toss out legal on-time votes" is a pretty dishonest framing. I don't suspect DPB purposefully made this bad faith framing, but rather was probably swayed by media sources that also frame it incorrectly. Just look at how many posts are about whether or not we should count on-time ballots. Whether we should count on-time ballots was never at stake here. What's at stake in this lawsuit is whether Nevada should have their deadline at election day + 3 days or whether they should have it as election day just like the majority of other states.
It’s possible I am misunderstanding entirely.
Here’s how I see it: So long as the voter casts their vote as described by the rules/laws/schedule, their vote must be counted. Since it’s the government’s responsibility both morally and logistically, there’s no one for them to defer to. The system being inadequate means the system must improve. The government is the one who must bend to accommodate the voter.
My impression is that you were saying you agree with the ethics above but you also think it’s a stupid situation to begin with.
Separately, in terms of fixing the issue:
IMO the project management component of designing an election needs to just continue to escalate until the necessary funds and staff are provided for conducting a prompt and secure election.
|
On May 17 2024 13:37 Simberto wrote:So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perryThat is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest? It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them.
In your article that you posted:
The Republican governor had previously ordered the board to review Perry’s case and said earlier that he would sign a pardon if recommended. The board, which is appointed by the governor, announced its unanimous recommendation in a message posted on the agency website, and Abbott’s pardon swiftly followed.
So it was a unanimous recommendation from the pardons and parole board. Perhaps the entire board is biased, it is appointed by the governor.
However, we go further down in the article and it looks like a key point of trial was whether or not the dead man pointed his gun at the killer. The dead man had an AK47. It took the jury 2 days to come to a decision to convict, so it wasn't exactly a swift conviction.
The problem isn't so much that this guy was pardoned. The problem is that we have a massive gun culture that mixes with self-defense laws. It seems that if two people oppose each other and both have guns, both can feel justified in shooting the other one and call it self-defense.
I'd personally prefer to throw the shooter in jail in those cases and basically make it so that you can't claim self defense if you bring a gun out in public, but that's not the law.
I don't like the situation, but it's not some crazy right wing "let's shoot protestors" movement egged on by politicians in this case. This one is more about the right to bring a gun anywhere and then "defend" yourself with it when someone else also has a gun.
|
On May 17 2024 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2024 13:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 17 2024 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I think this is just example 837435903 of BJ saying something in the least easily understood way possible. He's not wrong. He's just wording it in a way that most people assume meant those votes shouldn't be counted. He's describing how the situation is bad, not that the system should remain as is and that those "late" votes shouldn't be counted.
. I disagree. I think the issue is that DPB has repeatedly phrased the Nevada case as Republicans trying to throw out legal, valid votes to steal an election. If the Republicans win their lawsuit in Nevada all it does is push the voting deadline up a few days. Now ballots have to be received by election day instead of election day + 3 days. You're not throwing out valid votes received after election day because those votes are no longer valid. The idea that if Nevada's voting deadline gets overturned they will still use the same deadline then just not count the votes is nonsensical. Framing "Republicans are trying to push the voting deadline up 3 days" as "Republicans are trying to toss out legal on-time votes" is a pretty dishonest framing. I don't suspect DPB purposefully made this bad faith framing, but rather was probably swayed by media sources that also frame it incorrectly. Just look at how many posts are about whether or not we should count on-time ballots. Whether we should count on-time ballots was never at stake here. What's at stake in this lawsuit is whether Nevada should have their deadline at election day + 3 days or whether they should have it as election day just like the majority of other states. It’s possible I am misunderstanding entirely. Here’s how I see it: So long as the voter casts their vote as described by the rules/laws/schedule, their vote must be counted. Since it’s the government’s responsibility both morally and logistically, there’s no one for them to defer to. The system being inadequate means the system must improve. The government is the one who must bend to accommodate the voter. My impression is that you were saying you agree with the ethics above but you also think it’s a stupid situation to begin with. Separately, in terms of fixing the issue: IMO the project management component of designing an election needs to just continue to escalate until the necessary funds and staff are provided for conducting a prompt and secure election.
As far as I know, nothing has been provided in this thread that indicates Nevada has any trouble counting their votes or running their elections or operating their postal system. There's just a lot of noise that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The Nevada lawsuit isn't even unique. The GOP also sued North Dakota and Mississippi over their ballot deadlines. You just won't hear about it because those are solidly red states so you can't add any "election rigging" zest to it.
|
On May 17 2024 13:37 Simberto wrote:So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perryThat is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest? It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them.
The article I read in (mainstream) Swedish press said that the guy he shot charged him with a weapon. That seems like an important piece of context.
|
On May 17 2024 15:41 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2024 13:37 Simberto wrote:So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perryThat is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest? It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them. The article I read in (mainstream) Swedish press said that the guy he shot charged him with a weapon. That seems like an important piece of context.
It's not illegal to open-carry a firearm in Texas, which is also an important piece of context
|
On May 17 2024 17:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2024 15:41 Elroi wrote:On May 17 2024 13:37 Simberto wrote:So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perryThat is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest? It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them. The article I read in (mainstream) Swedish press said that the guy he shot charged him with a weapon. That seems like an important piece of context. It's not illegal to open-carry a firearm in Texas, which is also an important piece of context
Are these details not completely irrelevant, the guy having been found guilty in a court of law?
These kind of pardons speak to me of a justice system that demands justice for some, but not for others, depending on politics.
|
On May 17 2024 17:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2024 17:08 BlackJack wrote:On May 17 2024 15:41 Elroi wrote:On May 17 2024 13:37 Simberto wrote:So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perryThat is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest? It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them. The article I read in (mainstream) Swedish press said that the guy he shot charged him with a weapon. That seems like an important piece of context. It's not illegal to open-carry a firearm in Texas, which is also an important piece of context Are these details not completely irrelevant, the guy having been found guilty in a court of law? These kind of pardons speak to me of a justice system that demands justice for some, but not for others, depending on politics.
Well pardons by their very nature often involve people found guilty in a court of law. They are also often done for politically motivated reasons or even just as a favor to a friend. If you're against pardons entirely then I suppose the details don't matter.
Keep in mind that there's probably some black people in prison somewhere for no other reason than they happened to get an all-white jury in a place where that doesn't bode well for them. There's also probably people in prison for having some marijuana before it was largely decriminalized. I don't think it's as simple as "they were found guilty in a court of law."
@Simberto, On his way out the door after getting Me-Too'd out of office, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo-D granted a pardon to a member of the far-left terrorist group Weather Underground who was serving a prison sentence for the murder of 2 police officers and a security guard during an armored truck robbery. That person also happened to be the father of a powerful Democrat in California, the district attorney of San Francisco Cheasa Boudin. So granting a pardon for a murderer for political reasons is not an entirely new development.
|
On May 17 2024 18:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2024 17:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 17 2024 17:08 BlackJack wrote:On May 17 2024 15:41 Elroi wrote:On May 17 2024 13:37 Simberto wrote:So, apparently the Texas governor just pardoned a terrorist who drove into a BLM protest and shot a guy there. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/texas-greg-abbott-pardons-daniel-perryThat is honestly kinda scary. The US right is radicalizing more and more, and they are building up legal systems that literally lets them get away with murder. How many people will see stuff like this and either a) feel justified in murdering more people in the expectation of a pardon, or b) get too scared to express their right to peacefully protest? It is really, really weird that this is even possible, and it is really scary just how okay the US right seems to be with murdering people who don't agree with them. The article I read in (mainstream) Swedish press said that the guy he shot charged him with a weapon. That seems like an important piece of context. It's not illegal to open-carry a firearm in Texas, which is also an important piece of context Are these details not completely irrelevant, the guy having been found guilty in a court of law? These kind of pardons speak to me of a justice system that demands justice for some, but not for others, depending on politics. Well pardons by their very nature often involve people found guilty in a court of law. They are also often done for politically motivated reasons or even just as a favor to a friend. If you're against pardons entirely then I suppose the details don't matter. Keep in mind that there's probably some black people in prison somewhere for no other reason than they happened to get an all-white jury in a place where that doesn't bode well for them. There's also probably people in prison for having some marijuana before it was largely decriminalized. I don't think it's as simple as "they were found guilty in a court of law." On his way out the door after getting Me-Too'd out of office, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo-D granted a pardon to a member of the far-left terrorist group Weather Underground who was serving a prison sentence for the murder of 2 police officers and a security guard during an armored truck robbery. That person also happened to be the father of a powerful Democrat in California, the district attorney of San Francisco Cheasa Boudin. So granting a pardon for a murderer for political reasons is not an entirely new development.
Of course its not new. I'm against the whole thing tbh. It undermines the rule of law and is so easily abused without consequence.
This isn't one of those partisan things where i don't like it because the right wing abuse it. Everyone can abuse it. It makes a joke out of the whole system.
|
What do you think of jury nullification, and judges' authority to overturn jury verdicts?
|
I remember this case vaguely when it happened. But from what I googled the details are essentially that this guy drove his car through a street where protestors were demonstrating. The protestors swarmed his car and one of them had an AK-47. He shot the guy with the AK-47 and the other protestors scattered. There's no clear evidence that the guy with the AK-47 pointed it at him. Some witnesses, although probably fellow protestors that are hostile to the driver, said AK-guy didn't point his gun at the driver. The driver in an interview with police said "I thought he was going to aim it at me" which indicates to me that the AK-guy wasn't aiming it at him.
I think this is a perfect case to apply the "if the shoe were on the other foot" standard which is something I try to apply as often as I can. The idea being that if the roles were reversed, and it was an Antifa guy driving into let's say a Tea Party protest, then would Abbot have still pardoned him? Obviously not, in my opinion. Which makes the pardon pretty indefensible.
|
On May 17 2024 18:37 oBlade wrote:
What do you think of jury nullification, and judges' authority to overturn jury verdicts?
Jury nullification is very dodgy imo. I'm no legal expert, but from my understanding it usually comes down to the jury disagreeing with the law, which is not within their pervue.
When it comes to judge's authority to overturn verdicts, I can definitely see more scope for it being appropriate in certain cases.
Both concepts, along with pardons, should be subject to significant safeguards against abuse imho.
On May 17 2024 18:37 BlackJack wrote:
I remember this case vaguely when it happened. But from what I googled the details are essentially that this guy drove his car through a street where protestors were demonstrating. The protestors swarmed his car and one of them had an AK-47. He shot the guy with the AK-47 and the other protestors scattered. There's no clear evidence that the guy with the AK-47 pointed it at him. Some witnesses, although probably fellow protestors that are hostile to the driver, said AK-guy didn't point his gun at the driver. The driver in an interview with police said "I thought he was going to aim it at me" which indicates to me that the AK-guy wasn't aiming it at him.
I think this is a perfect case to apply the "if the shoe were on the other foot" standard which is something I try to apply as often as I can. The idea being that if the roles were reversed, and it was an Antifa guy driving into let's say a Tea Party protest, then would Abbot have still pardoned him? Obviously not, in my opinion. Which makes the pardon pretty indefensible.
There may have been other factors, such as things that were said by the guy, such as telling people he was gonna go shoot protesters and describing them as monkeys flinging shit, the kinds of things that might convince a jury that he had murderous intent.
Either way, I agree with you, this was a purely political decision, as these things tend to be, and its just a bad look for justice in Texas.
|
On May 17 2024 18:37 BlackJack wrote:
I remember this case vaguely when it happened. But from what I googled the details are essentially that this guy drove his car through a street where protestors were demonstrating. The protestors swarmed his car and one of them had an AK-47. He shot the guy with the AK-47 and the other protestors scattered. There's no clear evidence that the guy with the AK-47 pointed it at him. Some witnesses, although probably fellow protestors that are hostile to the driver, said AK-guy didn't point his gun at the driver. The driver in an interview with police said "I thought he was going to aim it at me" which indicates to me that the AK-guy wasn't aiming it at him.
I think this is a perfect case to apply the "if the shoe were on the other foot" standard which is something I try to apply as often as I can. The idea being that if the roles were reversed, and it was an Antifa guy driving into let's say a Tea Party protest, then would Abbot have still pardoned him? Obviously not, in my opinion. Which makes the pardon pretty indefensible.
Well, would he ever have been convicted in the first place if that were the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
