|
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 27 2024 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment?
Really, you can’t read between the lines on that one?
He has repeatedly made comments about throwing a grenade into the SCOTUS chambers as a means to end the 6-3 majority. He’s also repeatedly advocated for Biden to pack the SCOTUS to create his own majority. He doesn’t care about the integrity of the judiciary, he cares that the Dems aren’t doing more to rig the system in their favor.
|
United States44361 Posts
When judges in a video game are abusing their lifetime appointments to be openly corrupt then the solution becomes apparent. A lifetime appointment has its own remedy literally built into the name. But in any event, I am merely quoting President Trump who, on the campaign trail, explained that if Hillary Clinton won the election then she would get to nominate SCOTUS and that second amendment enthusiasts would be able to stop her. President Trump is clearly above reproach according to the likes of Judge Cannon so I really don’t see why anyone could have a problem with it.
|
On May 27 2024 08:22 BlackJack wrote:He doesn’t care about the integrity of the judiciary
Neither does the judiciary.
|
On May 27 2024 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2024 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah, she guaranteed that the case won't be scheduled before the election, and so therefore there won't be a verdict that could affect the election.
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment? I refer you to Presidential candidate Trump’s explanation about how second amendment enthusiasts can remove people from office.
Gotcha. I don't want Democrats to stoop down to the immoral levels of Republicans, but unfortunately that's also part of the reason why Democrats lose. I think we should still draw the line before shooting/grenading SCJs though.
|
On May 27 2024 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah, she guaranteed that the case won't be scheduled before the election, and so therefore there won't be a verdict that could affect the election.
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment?
Delaying the case so it doesn't have an effect on the election is election interference.
|
On May 27 2024 19:11 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2024 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah, she guaranteed that the case won't be scheduled before the election, and so therefore there won't be a verdict that could affect the election.
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment? Delaying the case so it doesn't have an effect on the election is election interference.
Not if there's legitimate reasons for delaying. I mean, you can certainly have the opinion that she's doing it in order to interfere with the election, but proving it is going to be a whole different ballgame.
In the same way the SC just tossed out a case that claimed the redistricting in South Carolina was racial segregation, agreeing with the state that it was segregation along political opinions (which, absurdly enough, is legal), which just happened to be along a racial divide as well in the good state of South Carolina. Proving peoples' reasons for doing things just isn't that easy unless they, like Trump does all the time, stupidly blurt out those reasons in a campaign rally.
|
On May 27 2024 19:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2024 19:11 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2024 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah, she guaranteed that the case won't be scheduled before the election, and so therefore there won't be a verdict that could affect the election.
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment? Delaying the case so it doesn't have an effect on the election is election interference. Not if there's legitimate reasons for delaying. I mean, you can certainly have the opinion that she's doing it in order to interfere with the election, but proving it is going to be a whole different ballgame. In the same way the SC just tossed out a case that claimed the redistricting in South Carolina was racial segregation, agreeing with the state that it was segregation along political opinions (which, absurdly enough, is legal), which just happened to be along a racial divide as well in the good state of South Carolina. Proving peoples' reasons for doing things just isn't that easy unless they, like Trump does all the time, stupidly blurt out those reasons in a campaign rally.
Hypothetically, yes, but I don't think Judge Cannon gave a legitimate reason. Both the prosecution side and the defense side said they'd be good to go by around the end of this summer, but Cannon said no. The fact that even Trump's side would have been up for trying this before Election Day makes me even more puzzled as to why Cannon kicked the can down the road for an indeterminate number of months.
|
|
|
That's an interpretation/conclusion based on this (which is linked inside your article): "Merchan says the jury need to be unanimous in determining whether he broke this state election law but they do not need to be unanimous in how, specifically, he broke the campaign law."
It sounds like there is more than one way that Trump could hypothetically be found in violation of X, and that the jury has to agree that Trump was in violation of X, even if different jurors reach that conclusion through different compelling evidences or testimonies. It boils down to a Yes or No for each juror, and each person's justification for why it's Yes or No doesn't need to be identical.
|
On May 30 2024 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's an interpretation/conclusion based on this (which is linked inside your article): "Merchan says the jury need to be unanimous in determining whether he broke this state election law but they do not need to be unanimous in how, specifically, he broke the campaign law." It sounds like there is more than one way that Trump could hypothetically be found in violation of X, and that the jury has to agree that Trump was in violation of X, even if different jurors reach that conclusion through different compelling evidences or testimonies. It boils down to a Yes or No for each juror, and each person's justification for why it's Yes or No doesn't need to be identical.
Your rephrasing it doesn't really help and makes it sound like they should just be considered separately. Did Trump break tax laws? Yes/no. Did he break election law? Yes/no.
They're two different crimes, and while being guilty of either makes you guilty, I don't know why you'd ask the jury to equate them, because they aren't the same. It's a bit like if someone is charged with committing murder while high on cocaine, and you ask the jury to evaluate the charges "was the person under the influence of illegal substances?" And "did he commit murder?", and tell them either route to a guilty verdict is fine.
EDIT: clicked through to Razydas link and neither he nor you read it properly. The judge instructed the jury that they had to be unanimous in both. The quibble is about that the jurors don't have to agree on how exactly Trump broke campaign law. In the analogy I made above it'd be like if the victim's cause of death was either stabbing or drowning and there's evidence for both. Some jurors think the victim was stabbed, others think he was drowned, but they all agree that the defendant was the one doing either the stabbing or the drowning, they should find the defendant guilty of murder.
|
It's wild that stuff like this is decided by a jury.
Why not also use juries to decide wheter you get a speeding ticket or not...
|
On May 30 2024 15:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's an interpretation/conclusion based on this (which is linked inside your article): "Merchan says the jury need to be unanimous in determining whether he broke this state election law but they do not need to be unanimous in how, specifically, he broke the campaign law." It sounds like there is more than one way that Trump could hypothetically be found in violation of X, and that the jury has to agree that Trump was in violation of X, even if different jurors reach that conclusion through different compelling evidences or testimonies. It boils down to a Yes or No for each juror, and each person's justification for why it's Yes or No doesn't need to be identical. Your rephrasing it doesn't really help and makes it sound like they should just be considered separately. Did Trump break tax laws? Yes/no. Did he break election law? Yes/no. They're two different crimes, and while being guilty of either makes you guilty, I don't know why you'd ask the jury to equate them, because they aren't the same. It's a bit like if someone is charged with committing murder while high on cocaine, and you ask the jury to evaluate the charges "was the person under the influence of illegal substances?" And "did he commit murder?", and tell them either route to a guilty verdict is fine. EDIT: clicked through to Razydas link and neither he nor you read it properly. The judge instructed the jury that they had to be unanimous in both. The quibble is about that the jurors don't have to agree on how exactly Trump broke campaign law. In the analogy I made above it'd be like if the victim's cause of death was either stabbing or drowning and there's evidence for both. Some jurors think the victim was stabbed, others think he was drowned, but they all agree that the defendant was the one doing either the stabbing or the drowning, they should find the defendant guilty of murder.
Pretty sure that was my take (let my violation of X = your example of committing murder), but okay  Thanks for the clarification!
|
On May 30 2024 17:24 Velr wrote:
It's wild that stuff like this is decided by a jury.
Why not also use juries to decide wheter you get a speeding ticket or not...
While most traffic violations are plead out before court or are conducted as bench trials (judge makes the determination), everyone has the right to a jury trial even for a speeding ticket.
For more info, the link below is from Illinois state bar association, but other states should be similar.
https://www.isba.org/public/guide/illinoistrafficcourts
|
On May 31 2024 03:00 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 17:24 Velr wrote:
It's wild that stuff like this is decided by a jury.
Why not also use juries to decide wheter you get a speeding ticket or not... While most traffic violations are plead out before court or are conducted as bench trials (judge makes the determination), everyone has the right to a jury trial even for a speeding ticket. For more info, the link below is from Illinois state bar association, but other states should be similar. https://www.isba.org/public/guide/illinoistrafficcourts Yeah, outside the US the notion that 10 guys off the street should decide your fate rather then a judge who studied and is (supposedly) qualified to objectively make judgements is hella weird.
|
United States44361 Posts
On May 31 2024 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 03:00 RenSC2 wrote:On May 30 2024 17:24 Velr wrote:
It's wild that stuff like this is decided by a jury.
Why not also use juries to decide wheter you get a speeding ticket or not... While most traffic violations are plead out before court or are conducted as bench trials (judge makes the determination), everyone has the right to a jury trial even for a speeding ticket. For more info, the link below is from Illinois state bar association, but other states should be similar. https://www.isba.org/public/guide/illinoistrafficcourts Yeah, outside the US the notion that 10 guys off the street should decide your fate rather then a judge who studied and is (supposedly) qualified to objectively make judgements is hella weird.
They didn’t have faith in judges and in fairness we’re seeing plenty of evidence to support that. Turns out you can be openly corrupt and not impeached.
|
On May 31 2024 03:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 31 2024 03:00 RenSC2 wrote:On May 30 2024 17:24 Velr wrote:
It's wild that stuff like this is decided by a jury.
Why not also use juries to decide wheter you get a speeding ticket or not... While most traffic violations are plead out before court or are conducted as bench trials (judge makes the determination), everyone has the right to a jury trial even for a speeding ticket. For more info, the link below is from Illinois state bar association, but other states should be similar. https://www.isba.org/public/guide/illinoistrafficcourts Yeah, outside the US the notion that 10 guys off the street should decide your fate rather then a judge who studied and is (supposedly) qualified to objectively make judgements is hella weird. They didn’t have faith in judges and in fairness we’re seeing plenty of evidence to support that. Turns out you can be openly corrupt and not impeached. You know, the sad part is your actually right. At this point I would sooner trust 10 randoms off the street to hold Trump in contempt of court then for a judge to do so.
|
On May 31 2024 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 03:00 RenSC2 wrote:On May 30 2024 17:24 Velr wrote:
It's wild that stuff like this is decided by a jury.
Why not also use juries to decide wheter you get a speeding ticket or not... While most traffic violations are plead out before court or are conducted as bench trials (judge makes the determination), everyone has the right to a jury trial even for a speeding ticket. For more info, the link below is from Illinois state bar association, but other states should be similar. https://www.isba.org/public/guide/illinoistrafficcourts Yeah, outside the US the notion that 10 guys off the street should decide your fate rather then a judge who studied and is (supposedly) qualified to objectively make judgements is hella weird.
Well, no. Jury trials are fairly common. Might be able to blame the British for spreading their legal system far and wide.
|
Well they came to a verdict, faster than many expected. Feels like that leans toward a conviction, but we'll know soon.
I don't know that a conviction will actually hurt Trump, but if they decided that quickly to acquit him, that would be devastating for Biden's chances in November.
|
|
|
Trump found guilty on all charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
