PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on December 28, 2023, 02:09:33 PM
-
Bullshit commentary from a bullshit network... but the fact remains that the communist judges reversed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOimg-RqQnY
-
I do NOT trust SCOTUS.
-
Maine just took him off.
-
I cannot believe what I am seeing in this country.
-
I cannot believe what I am seeing in this country.
I think it is great because of what is being exposed.
-
Asshole communist democrats HAVE to be assholes.
They can’t help it.
It must be like having a really bad birth defect.
The thing just takes over your life.
-
Maine just took him off.
Maine has four electoral votes, but is one of the few (Two I think) to split those votes. Last election Trump got one, so if this holds up he will probably lose that one.
Colorado on the other hand does not split votes and leans Democrat so he actually doesn't lose anything there.
The problem is that if this DOES hold up in court, then other States will probably fall in line, in which case, this could get real ugly real fast.
-
Asshole communist democrats HAVE to be assholes.
They can’t help it.
It must be like having a really bad birth defect.
The thing just takes over your life.
It is indeed quite literally a birth defect. Left wing authoritarianism is associated with psychopathy which I believe is genetic (inborn).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x
Two nearly representative US samples (Study 1: N = 391; Study 2: N = 377) completed online measures of left-wing authoritarianism, the Dark Triad personality traits, and two variables with a prosocial focus (i.e., altruism and social justice commitment). In addition, we assessed relevant covariates (i.e., age, gender, socially desirable responding, and virtue signaling). The results of multiple regression analyses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy (Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs.
In the interest of full disclosure, radical right wing authoritarians can also have negative personality traits such as narcissism and psychopathy. But while this has been conventionally accepted, the idea that “altruistic” left wingers could also have these traits had been rejected by mainstream academia. Secondly, as I’ve said before, right-wing authoritarians are actually left-wing in reality, because you cannot exercise top down control without controlling the economy.
What really stands out about the left-wing radicals, is that the study uncovers that they don’t actually give a fuck about the downtrodden groups they claim to be fighting for. (The italicized portion.)
-
The only two things leftist assholes care about is being 'in' with the asshole crowd and their own personal interests.
Egomania is not exclusive to the left, but it is pervasive throughout the left.
-
I cannot believe what I am seeing in this country.
Rush I think the same at least once daily. It’s amazing and scary what’s going on. Fucking Obama, rich now beyond belief living amongst rich white people in a mansion while still pushing this Marxist bullshit. The open boarder is so dangerous, I think it’s only a matter of time before something bad happens.
-
Rush I think the same at least once daily. It’s amazing and scary what’s going on. Fucking Obama, rich now beyond belief living amongst rich white people in a mansion while still pushing this Marxist bullshit. The open boarder is so dangerous, I think it’s only a matter of time before something bad happens.
The dismantling of our election system, the gaslighting about basic biology, the inversion of discrimination reality (highly paid black and female politicians, academics and media diversity hires lecturing us about systemic white racism and misogyny from their very position proving the exact opposite), we are going to completely eliminate fossil fuels when fossil fuels support our entire existence, the explosion of surveillance everywhere erasing any semblance of privacy, federal agencies making lists of political opponents from nothing more than “liking” a DJT tweet, the imprisoning for years without due process of non-violent protestors, the mandate to put kill switches in our cars, I could go on. It’s like a waking nightmare. This is not my USA.
-
Maine used the reasoning that Trump incited an insurrection, once again something he has never been charged with.
-
Maine used the reasoning that Trump incited an insurrection, once again something he has never been charged with.
“In my opinion Trump committed insurrection so we are subverting the will of the people and not allowing them to vote for him.”
Yeah, that’s saving democracy you motherfuckers.
-
I am not so sure how this will go with the SCOTUS.
If one looks at the Constitution itself it says that the states determine how the electors are chosen. This was sort of an intended aspect of Federalism and having a constitutional republic, rather than a direct democracy.
It also strikes me as worthwhile to read the CO court decision. I don’t think it is so cut and dried as one might like.
-
I try to look on the bright side. Perhaps this will work out like the election of Lincoln. Some fair fraction of the states won't be able to stomach the elected President and will decide to leave the Federal government. If that can work out without a civil war, it would be a very good thing.
Let the states like CA and NY that clearly no longer want to follow the rules in the Constitution peacefully go their own way.
-
I am not so sure how this will go with the SCOTUS.
If one looks at the Constitution itself it says that the states determine how the electors are chosen. This was sort of an intended aspect of Federalism and having a constitutional republic, rather than a direct democracy.
It also strikes me as worthwhile to read the CO court decision. I don’t think it is so cut and dried as one might like.
As I understand it, Colorado and Maine are disallowing Trump on the Republican party primary ballots, not the presidential election ballots. In fact the Colorado Republican party has said that if needed they will switch to a party caucus which doesn't allow the state to interfere in the party's candidate selection.
-
As I understand it, Colorado and Maine are disallowing Trump on the Republican party primary ballots, not the presidential election ballots. In fact the Colorado Republican party has said that if needed they will switch to a party caucus which doesn't allow the state to interfere in the party's candidate selection.
I still don’t see how it is a SCOTUS issue. Seems like a state issue and then whatever they do constitutes that state deciding who the electors are per their rules as allowed by the COTUS.
-
I still don’t see how it is a SCOTUS issue. Seems like a state issue and then whatever they do constitutes that state deciding who the electors are per their rules as allowed by the COTUS.
Because the justification the states are attempting to use is "Trump is an insurrectionist" and a twisted interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Trump has never been indicted or convicted of insurrection (18 USC 2383), as would be required of the 14th amendment. Also, the 14th amendment does not apply to the office of the President.
-
Because the justification the states are attempting to use is "Trump is an insurrectionist" and a twisted interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Trump has never been indicted or convicted of insurrection (18 USC 2383), as would be required of the 14th amendment. Also, the 14th amendment does not apply to the office of the President.
In a sense, that is what the whole argument at the CO supreme court was about. They claim the 14th is self-executing and requires no such conviction. Perhaps best to read the opinion which is at https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf .
Cato has a commentary at https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial
I just don't think this is cut and dried. It will be interesting to see how it plays out at the SCOTUS. The current justices include quite a few originalists, so I can see them arguing for a very Federalist interpretation.
-
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5lUKGxK17pwJ:https://amgreatness.com/2023/12/29/erasing-trump-from-2024-ballot-is-an-inside-the-beltway-job/&hl=en&gl=us
Credit Activism Inc. for taking the nation one step closer towards dictatorship.
While all eyes are on the Colorado Supreme Court—which voted 4–3 on Dec. 19 to bar likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump from the March 2024 primary ballot—they should be scrutinizing the professional litigant groups who’ve spent months shopping blue state courts for precisely this ruling.
We’ve been tracking them since this sinister campaign began in early September. Here’s the rundown.
The two groups behind the scheme are the irresponsibly named Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) and Free Speech for People (FSP), both led by left-wing political strategists and heavily funded by “dark money” mega-donors.
-
In a sense, that is what the whole argument at the CO supreme court was about. They claim the 14th is self-executing and requires no such conviction. Perhaps best to read the opinion which is at https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf .
Cato has a commentary at https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial
I just don't think this is cut and dried. It will be interesting to see how it plays out at the SCOTUS. The current justices include quite a few originalists, so I can see them arguing for a very Federalist interpretation.
"Self executing" is laughable.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
But this is the key provision of the 14th
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
These legal eagles are trying to claim that they can simply pick out a section of the 14th, and disregard the fact it does not apply to the President, and make a claim it's self executing. But Section 5 is clear that only the congress has the authority to enforce, which they have by enacting 18 USC 2383. And absent a conviction of this statute, the 14th cannot apply.
-
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
These legal eagles are trying to claim that they can simply pick out a section of the 14th, and disregard the fact it does not apply to the President, and make a claim it's self executing. But Section 5 is clear that only the congress has the authority to enforce, which they have by enacting 18 USC 2383. And absent a conviction of this statute, the 14th cannot apply.
I don't think section 5 says that at all, let alone clearly. It says Congress has the power. It doesn't say noone else can enforce it. They actually discuss this issue at some length in their opinion. I would suggest reading it.
Well, I guess you are not a lawyer and neither am I. Clearly the justices of the CO supreme court disagree with you.
-
I will note another thing I find interesting about this issue. In general conservatives claim they like limited government and particularly regarding the Federal government. This includes things like more power for the states, Federalism in essence.
Yet apparently that doesn't apply for many when it threatens the election of their favorite nationalist populist candidate. It strikes me that if one thinks the states should have more power and we should strictly follow the constitution, then that means the states are allowed to choose their method of choosing their presidential electors. Just like it says in the COTUS.
-
I don't think section 5 says that at all, let alone clearly. It says Congress has the power. It doesn't say noone else can enforce it. They actually discuss this issue at some length in their opinion. I would suggest reading it.
Well, I guess you are not a lawyer and neither am I. Clearly the justices of the CO supreme court disagree with you.
You don't have to be a lawyer, the language is clear.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So it's saying in the first part that congress has the power to enforce Amendment 14. The second part is telling us that congress must use appropriate legislation, which means the law must be written and approved by the House, the Senate and the President then codified into law.
The third part is telling you this applies to all sections of the 14th amendment.
So congress did just that with 18 USC 2383.
Furthermore, section 3 does not apply to the President.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
I've read the opinion. It's horribly written and a sad excuse coming from a state SC. Legal scholars on both sides of the aisle have lambasted it.
-
You don't have to be a lawyer, the language is clear.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So it's saying in the first part that congress has the power to enforce Amendment 14. The second part is telling us that congress must use appropriate legislation, which means the law must be written and approved by the House, the Senate and the President then codified into law.
Honestly I just don’t see that argument at all as prohibiting the states from enforcing it. Yes, Congress has that power. It doesn’t say it has to be used to enforce it. It also doesn’t say it belongs exclusively to the Federal government. They could have written it that way, but they did not.
One could try a Federal pre-emotion argument I suppose. But insofar as the COTUS explicitly says that the states are free to choose their electors in a manner that they choose, that seems like a stretch.
Certainly the states are not prohibited explicitly from deciding that someone they find guilty of insurrection can’t be on the ballot, if they wish to use an election to choose the electors. So express pre-emption is out. Field pre-emotion seems like a stretch because the Federal government doesn’t hold a presidential election other than through the electoral college. Maybe some sort of conflict with the rights of the populace could work - I don’t know.
I am not even sure the SCOTUS will grant certiorari as the issues don’t seem to clearly fall into a Federal issue.
I guess we’ll find out about at least that issue soon.
-
Personally I think the argument that the President is not an officer of the US government or didn’t take an oath to support the COTUS is fairly ridiculous. But that is the job of attorneys to try and make the language go the way that supports their client.
-
I also note that while they may have the legal power to do this in their state, it may not work politically -
https://apnews.com/article/b8e3db656909ca047cff14e80ac4decd
All told, I don’t think this will hurt Trump much and think the states having this power is perhaps a good thing, versus a gigantic Federal government controlled by the two branches of the uniparty.
-
All of the states have chosen to allow the citizens to vote and chose their electors that way. That would be codified in law and cannot just be subverted because someone doesn't like a candidate.
-
Honestly I just don’t see that argument at all as prohibiting the states from enforcing it. Yes, Congress has that power. It doesn’t say it has to be used to enforce it. It also doesn’t say it belongs exclusively to the Federal government. They could have written it that way, but they did not.
So a state can declare someone has broken a law and refuse their rights without the benefit of a trial? That's a stretch.
The SoS of Maine has declared DJT guilty of a crime, yet he's never been charged. That's very troubling when a state official decides they are now the judiciary and they have the power to pass a sentence absent of charges. And she's trying to use a section of the 14th while ignoring the rest.
One could try a Federal pre-emotion argument I suppose. But insofar as the COTUS explicitly says that the states are free to choose their electors in a manner that they choose, that seems like a stretch.
Certainly the states are not prohibited explicitly from deciding that someone they find guilty of insurrection can’t be on the ballot, if they wish to use an election to choose the electors. So express pre-emption is out. Field pre-emotion seems like a stretch because the Federal government doesn’t hold a presidential election other than through the electoral college. Maybe some sort of conflict with the rights of the populace could work - I don’t know.
State legislatures are empowered by the constitution to set state election laws, not members of a state's executive and certainly not the state judiciary. The Maine SoS is acting outside of her scope of duties and trying to circumvent state laws.
I am not even sure the SCOTUS will grant certiorari as the issues don’t seem to clearly fall into a Federal issue.
I guess we’ll find out about at least that issue soon.
We shall.
-
All of the states have chosen to allow the citizens to vote and chose their electors that way. That would be codified in law and cannot just be subverted because someone doesn't like a candidate.
And by convention. Especially since we now elect senators, the people expect to vote. Regardless of what the Constitution says which indeed leaves it to the states how they want to choose electors. We do not have the “right” to vote, as individuals, only the right not to be discriminated against for voting. But by convention, we’ve been electing the president by doing so, and for a state to disrupt that after 200 years is going to be entering uncharted waters and rather dangerous.
-
Personally I think the argument that the President is not an officer of the US government or didn’t take an oath to support the COTUS is fairly ridiculous. But that is the job of attorneys to try and make the language go the way that supports their client.
It is relevant since the Colorado SC and the Maine SoS are using the 14th as the basis of their decision. In the original draft of the 14th it mentioned the President, but was later removed before approval. The oath the President takes is also different than other required oaths.
So in essence the parties charging insurrection are saying "Only look at section 3, but you can't use all elements contained within".
-
So a state can declare someone has broken a law and refuse their rights without the benefit of a trial? That's a stretch.
The trouble with all these arguments is that whose rights have actually been violated? Trump has no legal right to be on the ballot and neither his liberty nor right to property are being violated. They simply aren’t putting him on the ballot.
And the COTUS is basically silent on how the states can decide on their electors.
So yes I think there is a reasonable argument that they are not violating Federal law by deciding he committed insurrection and they won’t put him on the ballot.
-
In the original draft of the 14th it mentioned the President, but was later removed before approval. The oath the President takes is also different than other required oaths.
Is that true? Citation please. If true that is a rather good argument for intent.
Yes, the oath is different but to say it is not to support the constitution or that the authors of the 14th meant to exclude the oath taken by the President strikes me as a very long stretch.
-
And by convention. Especially since we now elect senators, the people expect to vote. Regardless of what the Constitution says which indeed leaves it to the states how they want to choose electors. We do not have the “right” to vote, as individuals, only the right not to be discriminated against for voting. But by convention, we’ve been electing the president by doing so, and for a state to disrupt that after 200 years is going to be entering uncharted waters and rather dangerous.
This is more accurate. And I agree entering uncharted waters. But we are going to be doing so anyway bigger time soon I fear. So perhaps this is a good place to start.
-
The trouble with all these arguments is that whose rights have actually been violated? Trump has no legal right to be on the ballot and neither his liberty nor right to property are being violated. They simply aren’t putting him on the ballot.
And the COTUS is basically silent on how the states can decide on their electors.
So yes I think there is a reasonable argument that they are not violating Federal law by deciding he committed insurrection and they won’t put him on the ballot.
Dr Pete walks into an airport with his legally owned rifle. He walks around with his rifle, and is detained by airport police. After Dr Pete invokes his rights to said firearm, the police release him.
A few years later Dr Pete decides to run for office. The state SoS declares "Dr Pete cannot be on the ballot, he's a known terrorist".
Dr Pete argues he is not a terrorist, yet the SoS insist under various terrorism statutes Dr Pete is indeed a terrorist. Dr Pete states he has never been charged with any terrorism crimes, yet the SoS says she has read the statutes, and what Dr Pete did was indeed terrorism.
See where this goes?
Back to DJT. Never ever charged with 18 USC 2383, as prescribed by the 14th Amendment. However, he did stand trial in the senate under impeachment, and was acquitted. Yet, the CO SC and the Maine SoS say "So? We find him guilty".
-
The trouble with all these arguments is that whose rights have actually been violated? Trump has no legal right to be on the ballot and neither his liberty nor right to property are being violated. They simply aren’t putting him on the ballot.
And the COTUS is basically silent on how the states can decide on their electors.
So yes I think there is a reasonable argument that they are not violating Federal law by deciding he committed insurrection and they won’t put him on the ballot.
So now we just allow state officials to tell us who we can vote for? This is what communist countries do.
Please show us which state(s) laws allow the SoS, the governor or the state SC do arbitrarily decide qualifications of candidates outside of what the legislature has codified?
-
See where this goes?
In truth I have no problem with that outcome. But perhaps it is a poor example. I was actually encouraged by a number of people to run for office who felt my chances of winning to be quite good in the properly chosen district. But I have no desire to be a politician - too much science I need to finish.
Sort of similar to Q-Anon shaman, whom I believe is running and I know a lot of people who say they will vote for him.
What’s the saying - all publicity is good publicity?
-
So now we just allow state officials to tell us who we can vote for? This is what communist countries do.
Please show us which state(s) laws allow the SoS, the governor or the state SC do arbitrarily decide qualifications of candidates outside of what the legislature has codified?
I agree it is more likely an issue under state law. I just don’t know that it is an issue under Federal law.
The bottom line is this. The Federal government was originally supposed to be a republic, not a direct democracy. Representatives in the house were supposed to represent citizens directly. Senators were supposed to represent the states. And the president and vice president were supposed to be chosen by the rules the states decided on, which might differ by state.
The Founders did this for what I think were good reasons.
As @Rush noted, we have drifted more and more toward direct democracy, which the Founders disliked as being like mob rule. I agree with them and think this modern drift is a bad thing. The Federal government is too large and needs to be broken up, reduced or eliminated. I don’t think its power should be further enhanced merely to try and marginally improve DJT’s chances.
-
I agree it is more likely an issue under state law. I just don’t know that it is an issue under Federal law.
Pete, they are citing the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. The CO SC as well as the Maine SoS are citing that, and not citing state laws. That's what has to be decided.
The bottom line is this. The Federal government was originally supposed to be a republic, not a direct democracy. Representatives in the house were supposed to represent citizens directly. Senators were supposed to represent the states. And the president and vice president were supposed to be chosen by the rules the states decided on, which might differ by state.
The Founders did this for what I think were good reasons.
Agreed
As @Rush noted, we have drifted more and more toward direct democracy, which the Founders disliked as being like mob rule. I agree with them and think this modern drift is a bad thing. The Federal government is too large and needs to be broken up, reduced or eliminated. I don’t think its power should be further enhanced merely to try and marginally improve DJT’s chances.
What?
-
What?
Allowing the Federal government to determine how the states select their electors is assuming greater power than they were originally granted under the COTUS. Not a good thing in my view.
The effect is marginal because they can only try this in deep blue states where DJT is not popular. Lincoln won despite being excluded from the ballot in a number of democratic states.
Perhaps this will similarly result in states leaving the Federal government again. I hope peacefully.
-
I also note that while they may have the legal power to do this in their state, it may not work politically -
https://apnews.com/article/b8e3db656909ca047cff14e80ac4decd
All told, I don’t think this will hurt Trump much and think the states having this power is perhaps a good thing, versus a gigantic Federal government controlled by the two branches of the uniparty.
Attorneys have no special powers nor superior intellectual to read words. Why do you put so much faith in them? Judges and Attorneys are biased by their political leanings also.
-
Allowing the Federal government to determine how the states select their electors is assuming greater power than they were originally granted under the COTUS. Not a good thing in my view.
The effect is marginal because they can only try this in deep blue states where DJT is not popular. Lincoln won despite being excluded from the ballot in a number of democratic states.
Perhaps this will similarly result in states leaving the Federal government again. I hope peacefully.
Just like 2020 the election is going to be decided in the swing states and that’s all they need to focus on. Find Trump hating courts or AGs or whatever other cooked up mechanism in five or six states is all it will take.
No matter how you slice it, Constitution or not, this is blatant election interference. It is an attempt to subvert the will of the people. If it is correct to allow the states to railroad the preferred R candidate off the ballot then it is a horrible time to go back to the letter of the Constitution. Just like overturning RvW which was constitutionally correct but threw a massive monkey wrench into the works if the Republicans wanted to actually win and therefore terrible timing.
People have been subverting the Constitution almost since the moment it was signed. This is not the constitutional hill to die on, although I agree with Peter that we don’t want to hand more power over to the centralized authority, in this case having the feds dictate to states how to handle elections. This should be more in the purview of the parties. The D and R parties in each state should determine who they put on their primary ballots. For state governments to interfere with that is an overreach of state power, which is also a concern. Remember we are only talking about the primary here. The general is going to be a whole other discussion.
Edit: “I agree with Peter you…” I forgot who I was responding to. ;D
-
I don't agree with such blind and leftist positioning on the question of 'legal' election fixing.
peter sounds just like jim when he starts to pontificate.
Denying legally registered voters the right to DECIDE who they wish to vote for is no different than what the asshole chief justice of the Florida supreme court did in 2000. He ORDERED election boards to change votes to "determine the intent of the voter," instead of counting votes that represent the actual will of the voters.
In several instances the courts changed the definition of a properly cast vote hour by hour, attempting to secure the state for al gore.
Pretending to be thoughtful and correct when defending election fixing is just another in a long line of bullshit arguments presented by liberals justifying redefining things to suit their communist agenda.
-
Curious, since I do not visit predominantly left leaning forums, etc, Are Democrats as up in arms about states locking out any candidate that wants to run against Biden?
-
Curious, since I do not visit predominantly left leaning forums, etc, Are Democrats as up in arms about states locking out any candidate that wants to run against Biden?
From what I've seen leftist websites ignore things that oppose the agenda.
It is hard to get excited about things you don't know, though several posters often engage in exactly that.
-
Since Peter appears to be heavy with TDS, I wonder who he is supporting as his candidate of choice?
-
Attorneys have no special powers nor superior intellectual to read words. Why do you put so much faith in them? Judges and Attorneys are biased by their political leanings also.
I have to disagree somewhat here. They have training and experience in how to parse the merits and problems with a given legal argument and to consider more objectively how a case might play out in court. They also the training and experience in how to actually write briefs and procedures.
Similar to how professional scientists are better equipped to evaluate scientific evidence and questions.
I always ask people who deny that professionals have skills and experience (which I am not saying is Anthony’s position), would you perform brain surgery because you have watched some YouTube videos and done some Google searches?
OTOH, attorneys are actually hired to represent the positions of the parties, so one can depend on them for a vigorous advocacy of a particular position.
-
Since Peter appears to be heavy with TDS, I wonder who he is supporting as his candidate of choice?
Actually I don’t even know the name of the person I will likely vote for yet.
That is because I think we are marching down a course of progressively greater statism and loss of freedom and are cruising for a bruising. Thus I don’t think which branch of the uniparty is in charge matters very much.
Who would I like? Though not at all practical I would prefer Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Javier Milieu (though I understand he is a bit busy at the moment).
Thus I will likely do what I have nearly all my adult life and vote for the Libertarian party candidate, whoever that may be. The one exception will be if my state looks very close. And Arizona may be. In which case I will probably hold my nose and vote for DJT actually. He has a better pro-freedom average.
-
I have to disagree somewhat here. They have training and experience in how to parse the merits and problems with a given legal argument and to consider more objectively how a case might play out in court. They also the training and experience in how to actually write briefs and procedures.
Similar to how professional scientists are better equipped to evaluate scientific evidence and questions.
I always ask people who deny that professionals have skills and experience (which I am not saying is Anthony’s position), would you perform brain surgery because you have watched some YouTube videos and done some Google searches?
OTOH, attorneys are actually hired to represent the positions of the parties, so one can depend on them for a vigorous advocacy of a particular position.
You’re not wrong but on the other hand, that very skill and breadth of knowledge, as well as possibly higher intelligence than average, enables them to adroitly construct an argument that appears objective but in fact conceals their bias. No one is completely unbiased. Some scientists and lawyers can set aside their bias better than others. But in a situation where they truly believe the fate of the free world is in their hands (would you kill Hitler in 1938 if you could go back in time?) many would violate their own oath of objectivity if they thought it would lead to a greater good. And many TDS sufferers do truly think Trump is as bad as Hitler.
-
I have to disagree somewhat here. They have training and experience in how to parse the merits and problems with a given legal argument and to consider more objectively how a case might play out in court. They also the training and experience in how to actually write briefs and procedures.
Similar to how professional scientists are better equipped to evaluate scientific evidence and questions.
I always ask people who deny that professionals have skills and experience (which I am not saying is Anthony’s position), would you perform brain surgery because you have watched some YouTube videos and done some Google searches?
OTOH, attorneys are actually hired to represent the positions of the parties, so one can depend on them for a vigorous advocacy of a particular position.
There are specialities in science, yes?
Would you agree that there are specialties in law? I'm not expecting an attorny specializing in tax law to be an expert on constitutional law.
-
Actually I don’t even know the name of the person I will likely vote for yet.
That is because I think we are marching down a course of progressively greater statism and loss of freedom and are cruising for a bruising. Thus I don’t think which branch of the uniparty is in charge matters very much.
Who would I like? Though not at all practical I would prefer Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Javier Milieu (though I understand he is a bit busy at the moment).
Thus I will likely do what I have nearly all my adult life and vote for the Libertarian party candidate, whoever that may be. The one exception will be if my state looks very close. And Arizona may be. In which case I will probably hold my nose and vote for DJT actually. He has a better pro-freedom average.
That sounds like a good plan. Trump may not have the libertarian vision of the Pauls or, if elected, the unilateral power to dismantle the state that Milieu seems to, but he would stave off the growth of totalitarianism as best he could while bettering the economy and hopefully positioning the country to elect another Republican-but-not-RINO president in 2028. Since it seems unlikely a third party will win the White House in the foreseeable future, it looks like strengthening the MAGA faction within the GOP is our best strategy, at least for now.
-
Since Peter appears to be heavy with TDS, I wonder who he is supporting as his candidate of choice?
With all due respect Randy, and I really do respect you, but I think people on this board use the phrase TDS too often and inappropriately.
It reminds me of how we were all called racists if we objected to any of Obama's policies or decisions. Just because we criticize Trump doesn't mean it is due to TDS.
-
I have to disagree somewhat here. They have training and experience in how to parse the merits and problems with a given legal argument and to consider more objectively how a case might play out in court. They also the training and experience in how to actually write briefs and procedures.
Similar to how professional scientists are better equipped to evaluate scientific evidence and questions.
I always ask people who deny that professionals have skills and experience (which I am not saying is Anthony’s position), would you perform brain surgery because you have watched some YouTube videos and done some Google searches?
OTOH, attorneys are actually hired to represent the positions of the parties, so one can depend on them for a vigorous advocacy of a particular position.
Peter, with all due respect, you're in a fantasy world if you believe that about lawyers.
Just like your profession, there is a percent that are educated and extremely well versed in your profession. Then, you have those who don't have a clue, but managed to squeak their way through school.
What's the old joke? What do you call a guy who graduates dead last in medical school? "Doctor".
Even more so with lawyers. Graduating with a JD does not make someone a lawyer, or passing some hokey state bar. This is why over half the lawyers can barely eeck out a living, and wind up chasing ambulances.
Writing briefs and procedures? Tons of software for that, and most lawyers use legal assistants to actually do the work.
Lawyers want everyone to believe they hold some mystical powers and only someone who holds a JD can enjoin a conversation on the law. Again, not true, not even close. Just read the Colorado brief on removing Trump from the ballot, written by 4 highly trained "lawyers". Laughable and sad.
-
With all due respect Randy, and I really do respect you, but I think people on this board use the phrase TDS too often and inappropriately.
It reminds me of how we were all called racists if we objected to any of Obama's policies or decisions. Just because we criticize Trump doesn't mean it is due to TDS.
I did not realize what that stood for actually. Very close to name calling.
-
Just like your profession, there is a percent that are educated and extremely well versed in your profession. Then, you have those who don't have a clue, but managed to squeak their way through school.
...
Even more so with lawyers. Graduating with a JD does not make someone a lawyer, or passing some hokey state bar. This is why over half the lawyers can barely eeck out a living, and wind up chasing ambulances.
Writing briefs and procedures? Tons of software for that, and most lawyers use legal assistants to actually do the work.
Lawyers want everyone to believe they hold some mystical powers and only someone who holds a JD can enjoin a conversation on the law. Again, not true, not even close.
I think if we disagree it is in a manner of degree. I know some lawyer's incompetence from painful and expensive experience. I also know how a lay person can win a case in some circumstances. For example, I actually beat the TSA in Federal appeals court as a pro per. However, most pro per representation in court is an outright disaster. Just like a lay person trying to write orders in the hospital would be. They just don't understand even the basics of court procedure and will usually just be run over.
-
There are specialities in science, yes?
Would you agree that there are specialties in law? I'm not expecting an attorny specializing in tax law to be an expert on constitutional law.
Very true.
-
I think if we disagree it is in a manner of degree. I know some lawyer's incompetence from painful and expensive experience. I also know how a lay person can win a case in some circumstances. For example, I actually beat the TSA in Federal appeals court as a pro per. However, most pro per representation in court is an outright disaster. Just like a lay person trying to write orders in the hospital would be. They just don't understand even the basics of court procedure and will usually just be run over.
I know legal assistants that are better versed in court procedures than the JD's they work for. Law schools aren't producing their best, and state bar associations are nothing more than good ol' boy clubs.
Go over to PoA and just read what the forum lawyers write if you want to see incompetence. Same goes for TPP, it's run by a lawyer.
-
With all due respect Randy, and I really do respect you, but I think people on this board use the phrase TDS too often and inappropriately.
It reminds me of how we were all called racists if we objected to any of Obama's policies or decisions. Just because we criticize Trump doesn't mean it is due to TDS.
That's fine, I'm cool with that.
-
The biggest problem with judges and lawyers is their desire to inflict their opinions and convictions at the expense of citizens. Once they cross that Rubicon once it becomes easier and easier to do it all the time.
The USSC decision on private property rights in conn. is an excellent example.
The obamacare decision ramrodded by the coward john roberts is another.
Straight up personal opinion destroying personal freedom because the coward john roberts wanted to feel like he was part of the in crowd,
-
I know legal assistants that are better versed in court procedures than the JD's they work for. Law schools aren't producing their best, and state bar associations are nothing more than good ol' boy clubs.
Go over to PoA and just read what the forum lawyers write if you want to see incompetence. Same goes for TPP, it's run by a lawyer.
Like all state sanctioned monopolies, there is likely a decline of competence over time.
Yes, the lawyers over at PoA are quite the bunch. May be some selection bias of course. We set up FlyersForum specifically so one does not have to put up with them anymore!
-
Someone mention lawyers?
https://thedailybs.com/2023/12/29/star-witness-in-alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-used-ai-to-write-legal-briefs-cited-fake-court-cases/ (https://thedailybs.com/2023/12/29/star-witness-in-alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-used-ai-to-write-legal-briefs-cited-fake-court-cases/)
Michael Cohen, a former attorney for former President Donald Trump, accused of citing cases that did not exist in an effort to end his supervised release, says he used Google Bard, a form of artificial intelligence (AI) to do so, according to legal documents.
-
With all due respect Randy, and I really do respect you, but I think people on this board use the phrase TDS too often and inappropriately.
It reminds me of how we were all called racists if we objected to any of Obama's policies or decisions. Just because we criticize Trump doesn't mean it is due to TDS.
I agree. If someone dislikes Trump and votes for another Republican in the primary, but if it’s Trump vs Biden in the general, then they think voting for Trump is a no-brainer, I don’t call that TDS. That applies to Republicans. There are exceptions such as Ann Coulter, who started out supporting Trump but now for some reason has turned completely against him, and I would characterize her as having TDS even if she holds her nose and votes for him vs Biden.
Democrats have a form of congenital TDS simply from only getting their news from TDS soaked mainstream media. More thoughtful Democrats might have genuine TDS from being involved in political discourse and even then there are exceptions such as Michael Rappaport who has full blown TDS but might actually hold his nose and vote for him anyway because Biden is just that bad, so bad that a lot of dyed in wool Dems are going to vote against him.
-
Someone mention lawyers?
https://thedailybs.com/2023/12/29/star-witness-in-alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-used-ai-to-write-legal-briefs-cited-fake-court-cases/ (https://thedailybs.com/2023/12/29/star-witness-in-alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-used-ai-to-write-legal-briefs-cited-fake-court-cases/)
He’s not the first to be caught doing that. AI is already becoming a big problem and we haven’t even seen the real beginning of it yet.
-
. The open boarder is so dangerous, I think it’s only a matter of time before something bad happens.
This is by design. Look at what was put in place by the "Patriot Act", and then the scamdemic.
-
We now have the FBI putting up a building that will rival the pentagon. They have been massively rewarded by congress.
Then we have the Capital Police putting up sub stations around the country. Add in our republican led congress approved even more spy powers.
2024 will see some things taking place we have never seen before. We will see the federal government seize even more power, and another huge expansion of the police state.
The illegal immigrant invasion will forever change the way we live.
-
I agree. If someone dislikes Trump and votes for another Republican in the primary, but if it’s Trump vs Biden in the general, then they think voting for Trump is a no-brainer, I don’t call that TDS. That applies to Republicans. There are exceptions such as Ann Coulter, who started out supporting Trump but now for some reason has turned completely against him, and I would characterize her as having TDS even if she holds her nose and votes for him vs Biden.
Democrats have a form of congenital TDS simply from only getting their news from TDS soaked mainstream media. More thoughtful Democrats might have genuine TDS from being involved in political discourse and even then there are exceptions such as Michael Rappaport who has full blown TDS but might actually hold his nose and vote for him anyway because Biden is just that bad, so bad that a lot of dyed in wool Dems are going to vote against him.
I'm not disputing that TDS is a real thing. I just think it is misused when describing some of us on this forum.
-
I'm not disputing that TDS is a real thing. I just think it is misused when describing some of us on this forum.
I understand.