ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Incidentally, "innocent" is not a verdict. "Not guilty" is a finding that the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not a finding of factual innocence. Trials don't produce findings of factual innocence.
It’s rare, but in some cases courts have declared defendants “factually innocent”. I think it’s usually via DNA…but yeah I don’t think it’s ever an option in a normal trial. Would open up a whole can of worms if juries could find guilty, not guilty or innocent.
Prosecutors and Hastings’ lawyers returned to court to ask Judge William C. Ryan to take the additional step and declare him innocent of the killing 40 years ago.
The judge’s Wednesday declaration of Hastings as “factually innocent” means the evidence proves conclusively that Hastings did not commit the crime.
It’s rare, but in some cases courts have declared defendants “factually innocent”. I think it’s usually via DNA
Yes, but not at trial. This is a separate exoneration proceeding.
ETA post your edit: As Luciom correctly pointed out, different countries do have different options for jury verdicts. He mentioned the Italian ones; I know that in Scotland "not guilty" and "not proven" are separate verdicts, making "not guilty" essentially the same as "factually innocent".
Yeah I exited when you were typing to make that clear.
I do think it's comical how many times Luciom and Lozen use "we" and "us" when speaking of USA conservatives. It's somewhat offensive but certainly pales compared to their advocating unqualified opinions about how Americans are going to/should/do think or react to a political event.
I do think it's comical how many times Luciom and Lozen use "we" and "us" when speaking of USA conservatives. It's somewhat offensive but certainly pales compared to their advocating unqualified opinions about how Americans are going to/should/do think or react to a political event.
As i tried to tell you many times, i am living in the american empire, and decision of your court affect my country in several ways. And my dad is an american citizen who lives in the USA and i could become one if i wanted to (i don't , FATCA makes your life miserable outside the USA).
As i tried to tell you many times, i am living in the american empire, and I'mdecision of your court affect my country in several ways. And my dad is an american citizen who lives in the USA and i could become one if i wanted to (i don't , FATCA makes your life miserable outside the USA).
None of that makes you a we or an us but the pronoun mistakes are ironic. If you ever come here, watch out for the barbed wire in the river!
I do think it's comical how many times Luciom and Lozen use "we" and "us" when speaking of USA conservatives. It's somewhat offensive but certainly pales compared to their advocating unqualified opinions about how Americans are going to/should/do think or react to a political event.
Ever heard the phrase when the US sneezes Canada catches a cold? I am not sure I have used us or we when referring to the USA though I could be wrong
actually it did she took money from billionaires but lets be clear you dont care as a democrat selected her and i think you is a great supreme court judge
What does her accepting money from billionaires have to do with your claim? Your claim was that she was accepting money from folks who had cases pending. Your example was her accepting money from someone related to a case that a) wasn't actually heard by the supreme court with no evidence that she was involved in the decision not to grant cert and b) was denied cert the year before she accepted the money.
There are serious ethical issues in all sorts of areas along these lines but you made an outrageous claim, provided zero support for the claim, and then shifted the goalposts completely to imply that you provided something to support your claim. Every time I look back at this forum you manage to have become an even worse poster.
Convicted Felon Trump will now be forced to take a drug test?
Trump having a black, female probation officer is funny af.
Wasn't Michael Cohen a first time offender? He got 3 years.
actually it did she took money from billionaires but lets be clear you dont care as a democrat selected her and i think you is a great supreme court judge
Alright, so i guess that does mean we need to pull up your claim. Here it is below:
So, "folks she had cases pending" is the key to your claim.
So, the article mentioned Morris Khan and the year 2018. Can you please show us what case in the Supreme Court was pending for Morris Khan in 2018? If you can do that, then the article supports your claim. If you cannot, then it does not.
Seems pretty simple.
edit: I see Willd has covered my objections pretty well, above. Pretty typical of Willd. He says what I would love to say much better.
actually it did she took money from billionaires but lets be clear you dont care as a democrat selected her and i think you is a great supreme court judge
I don't care about this because RBG is DOA.
Maybe try discussing supreme court justices who are still in the court instead of six feet under.
Speaking of Project 2025, Kansas is getting an early start.
https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights...
Kansas Constitution does not include a right to vote, state Supreme Court majority says
"But it was the ballot signature verification measure’s majority opinion — which stated there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights — that drew fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices."
...
"In fact, Justice Caleb Stegall, writing for the majority, said that the dissenting justices wrongly accused the majority of ignoring past precedent, holding that the court has not identified a “fundamental right to vote” within the state constitution."
YIKES
Speaking of Project 2025, Kansas is getting an early start.
https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights...
Kansas Constitution does not include a right to vote, state Supreme Court majority says
"But it was the ballot signature verification measure’s majority opinion — which stated there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights — that drew fiery dissent from three
not sure what this has to do with project 2025.
some state constitutions might have glaring holes, and? federal constitution works there anyway and constitutions can be amended
If low IQ=poor, clearly their interests are ignored and they have little influence in that way.
Reading about in now, low iq people are more likely to be prejudiced against minorities. Hi IQ more likely to be "biased" against religious fundamentalists and big business.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-iq-det...
Smart people, socially liberal and maybe kind of economically conservative though other factors are more important in economics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
It's inherently very messy to figure out. How do you measure intelligence, what counts as left or right? Some test subjects were in Scandinavia. Do L/R standards change by county?
But, you'd have to guess that excluding low IQ voters would hurt Trump.
I think it would especially hurt people like him relative to other Republicans and in primaries. While in R/D races, Ds would loose some poor voters.
I haven't given this anywhere near as much thought as you have. It just seems to me that if a candidate like Trump even stands a chance, let alone gets elected, something has gone terribly wrong somewhere along the line.
Ever heard the phrase when the US sneezes Canada catches a cold? I am not sure I have used us or we when referring to the USA though I could be wrong
Some yahoo claims we need to fight every instance of your "linguistic violence" in another thread, so I am just doing my part. Use your proper pronouns!!!!
And like yahoo1, your response doesn't justify claiming inclusiveness.
I haven't given this anywhere near as much thought as you have. It just seems to me that if a candidate like Trump even stands a chance, let alone gets elected, something has gone terribly wrong somewhere along the line.
In a two party system, primaries matter a lot.
Republicans failed to do what the DNC only barely did in 2016, using all their power to defeat the extremist candidate in the primaries.
That was considered a mistake and something that was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for the GOP that cycle (Hillary was supposed to win with close to 100% probability and so on).
Except we discovered voters actually don't hate bizzarre candidates.
That broke the dam and maybe it's time you realize things have always been like this, it's the gate keeping mechanisms that are weaker than usual.
The vast majority of the population sucks in general at everything, including picking candidates.
This in some way is your Churchill moment in which you realize that "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter".
And there is no better mechanism.
You just need to have a strong constitutional order to protect the nation from the inevitable disasters caused by stupidity and it's still better than non democratic alternatives
I don't know why you think this is some epiphany I just had. I've been saying some variation of all this for years, including on this forum.
