Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Cite please

Here. Or just do a google search for "vote.org" and "700%" There are multiple sources reporting it, including Politico.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't have any idea where Sebby saw that number, but there have been a lot of stories this week about increases in voter registration since the weekend. You can find them using the Google.

On another note, Trump pulling out of the debate with her looks weak. He's arguing that he needs to do so because of the sentencing on September 18. Why? And... huh? You'd think he'd want to do so before the 18th to avoid having any sentence cited by Harris in the debate. As it stands now, Harris can badger him for a new debate date after the 18th and assert he has no reason not to participate except for being afraid.

The idea that one should not debate when one is ahead is smart when one is ahead by a significant margin. Trump is not ahead by a significant margin in all of the battlegrounds. He has AZ, NV, GA, and NC, it appears, but PA has tightened since Harris' entry, and MI and WI are ties.

I also think he's making a huge error in thinking his conviction in NY, which is widely seen as a kangaroo political trial, is a big deal. First, highlighting the banana republic aspect and nakedly political aim of that prosecution actually helps him raise money and attract independents disgusted with what happened there. Second, in the rust belt, this election is all about cost of living. Working class voters there aren't high enough up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs to care about the character of the candidate, abortion rights, the environment, or "democracy being on the ballot." He could dispense with an argument from Harris about any of those things by simply looking a the audience and saying, "Gas will be $2.50 a gallon under me... Bet on it!" and he wins.

But never thinks that far. He never thinks at all. Which is proven by his selection of Vance.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On another note, Trump pulling out of the debate with her looks weak. He's arguing that he needs to do so because of the sentencing on September 18. Why? And... huh? You'd think he'd want to do so before the 18th to avoid having any sentence cited by Harris in the debate. As it stands now, Harris can badger him for a new debate date after the 18th and assert he has no reason not to participate except for being afraid.

The idea that one should not debate when one is ahead is smart when one is ahead by a significant margin. Trump is not ahead by a significant margin in all of the battlegrounds. He has AZ, NV, GA, and NC, it appears, but PA has tightened since Harris' entry, and MI and WI are ties.

I also think he's making a huge error in thinking his conviction in NY, which is widely seen as a kangaroo political trial, is a big deal. First, highlighting the banana republic aspect and nakedly political aim of that prosecution actually helps him raise money and attract independents disgusted with what happened there. Second, in the rust belt, this election is all about cost of living. Working class voters there aren't high enough up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs to care about the character of the candidate, abortion rights, the environment, or "democracy being on the ballot." He could dispense with an argument from Harris about any of those things by simply looking a the audience and saying, "Gas will be $2.50 a gallon under me... Bet on it!" and he wins.

But never thinks that far. He never thinks at all. Which is proven by his selection of Vance.

I think Trump is a little spooked by her. Not sure how long that will last.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On another note, Trump pulling out of the debate with her looks weak. He's arguing that he needs to do so because of the sentencing on September 18. Why? And... huh? You'd think he'd want to do so before the 18th to avoid having any sentence cited by Harris in the debate. As it stands now, Harris can badger him for a new debate date after the 18th and assert he has no reason not to participate except for being afraid.

The idea that one should not debate when one is ahead is smart when one is ahead by a significant margin. Trump is not ahead by a significant margin in all of the battlegrounds. He has AZ, NV, GA, and NC, it appears, but PA has tightened since Harris' entry, and MI and WI are ties.

I also think he's making a huge error in thinking his conviction in NY, which is widely seen as a kangaroo political trial, is a big deal. First, highlighting the banana republic aspect and nakedly political aim of that prosecution actually helps him raise money and attract independents disgusted with what happened there. Second, in the rust belt, this election is all about cost of living. Working class voters there aren't high enough up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs to care about the character of the candidate, abortion rights, the environment, or "democracy being on the ballot." He could dispense with an argument from Harris about any of those things by simply looking a the audience and saying, "Gas will be $2.50 a gallon under me... Bet on it!" and he wins.

But never thinks that far. He never thinks at all. Which is proven by his selection of Vance.

Woah.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Woah.

From the page that told us Trump will win in 2016. https://www.realclearpolling.com/map...ctoral-college

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

his conviction in NY, which is widely seen as a kangaroo political trial

Cite please

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Cite please

Trump has called it that in a transparent effort to delegitimize the proceedings, a typical move for him, and many of his supporters have repeated it. I'd be more curious to know if Sebby himself thinks it was a kangaroo political trial, and, if so, why, and what he would have done differently as the judge. If not, I wonder why Sebby is choosing to repeat nonsense with which he disagrees.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump has called it that in a transparent effort to delegitimize the proceedings, a typical move for him, and many of his supporters have repeated it. I'd be more curious to know if Sebby himself thinks it was a kangaroo political trial, and, if so, why, and what he would have done differently as the judge. If not, I wonder why Sebby is choosing to repeat nonsense with which he disagrees.

This is actually two questions.

First, was the prosecution a kangaroo/banana republic political decision? Yes. Unequivocally. Even Andrew Cuomo has called it an embarrassment. It was nakedly political and there is no dispute on that. Don’t even attempt to justify it. You’ll only embarrass yourself. Bragg’s predecessor wouldn’t bring the case. And Bragg campaigned on “getting Trump.”

Second, we come to the trial. Was that a kangaroo proceeding? I don’t think so. The judge and jury did what they were supposed to do. Was it an improper forum? Probably. But Trump has preserved the argument that he could not receive a fair trial for appeal. So again, technically not unfair.

Apologists for the nakedly political motive behind the prosecution will try to conflate these two things. As if “The trial was fairly administered!” is a retort to the argument the decision to prosecute was obviously political.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is actually two questions.

First, was the prosecution a kangaroo/banana republic political decision? Yes. Unequivocally. Even Andrew Cuomo has called it an embarrassment. It was nakedly political and there is no dispute on that. Don’t even attempt to justify it. You’ll only embarrass yourself. Bragg’s predecessor wouldn’t bring the case. And Bragg campaigned on “getting Trump.”

Second, we come to the trial. Was that a kangaroo proceeding? I don’t think so. The judge and jury did what they were supposed to do. Was it an improper forum? Probably. But Trump has preserved the argument that he could not receive a fair trial for appeal. So again, technically not unfair.

Apologists for the nakedly political motive behind the prosecution will try to conflate these two things. As if “The trial was fairly administered!” is a retort to the argument the decision to prosecute was obviously political.

I mean, he did it and it was obvious he did it. You can call that "political" if you want, but he still did it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is actually two questions.

First, was the prosecution a kangaroo/banana republic political decision? Yes. Unequivocally. Even Andrew Cuomo has called it an embarrassment. It was nakedly political and there is no dispute on that. Don’t even attempt to justify it. You’ll only embarrass yourself. Bragg’s predecessor wouldn’t bring the case. And Bragg campaigned on “getting Trump.”

Second, we come to the trial. Was that a kangaroo proceeding? I don’t think so. The judge and jury did what they were supposed to do. Was it an improper forum? Probably. But Trump has preserved the argument that he could not receive a fair trial for appeal. So again, technically not unfair.

Apologists for the nakedly political motive behind the prosecution will try to conflate these two things. As if “The trial was fairly administered!” is a retort to the argument the decision to prosecute was obviously political.

Your conceit that "the"* motive bending the decision to bring the case was political is pretty decisively refuted by the fact that Trump had no good defense, factual or legal, and was convicted. It's clear that he did what he did, and that it was a crime. Calling it "political" is meant to persuade people who weren't paying attention that Trump didn't actually do the crimes, and that the convictions weren't fair, to change the subject from what he did and feed the grievances of him and his followers. But he did do the crimes, and he was fairly convicted for them.


* There can be only one?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your conceit that "the"* motive bending the decision to bring the case was political is pretty decisively refuted by the fact that Trump had no good defense, factual or legal, and was convicted. It's clear that he did what he did, and that it was a crime. Calling it "political" is meant to persuade people who weren't paying attention that Trump didn't actually do the crimes, and that the convictions weren't fair, to change the subject from what he did and feed the grievances of him and his followers. But he did do the crimes, and he was fairly convicted for them.


* There can be only one?

You could’ve just said, “I’ve no retort of any merit.”

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” - Stalin’s Chief of Secret Police

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...r-brought.html

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...d-the-law.html

And like it or not, my assessment, not your apologist’s justification, is the consensus. On the eastern seaboard (and we’re what counts), nobody treats that conviction as real.

Similarly, nobody treats Cannon’s dismissal as real. That too was a nakedly political move. Bragg and Cannon should both be fired from their positions for lack of ethics. Then they can open a firm together.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You could’ve just said, “I’ve no retort of any merit.”

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” - Stalin’s Chief of Secret Police

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...r-brought.html

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...d-the-law.html

Not sure what you mean by "political." A DA's job is to prosecute people who commit crimes. Trump did things that were a crime under New York laws, and he was prosecuted. (You just said the trial itself was fair.) That refutes that claim that he was only prosecuted because of who he was. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

I'm not impressed by Andrew Cuomo's view on anything much, and am disappointed in you for thinking I might be. Why don't you tell me what Jon Herdman says about the Canadian women's team's use of drones?

And like it or not, my assessment, not your apologist’s justification, is the consensus.

Everyone -- everyone -- understands that Trump wants to be above the law. The red/blue divide in this country is whether he should be. So when you tell me the "consensus" is what Republicans think, it makes me think you should get out more. Seriously, no one thinks Trump hasn't been criming. But about half the country, a little less actually, but two-thirds of the Supreme Court, think he should get away with it.

On the eastern seaboard (and we’re what counts), nobody treats that conviction as real.

That's cute. Try that line on someone it might work on.

Similarly, nobody treats Cannon’s dismissal as real. That too was a nakedly political move. Bragg and Cannon should both be fired from their positions for lack of ethics. Then they can open a firm together.

I personally take a different view of what Cannon was up to. I think she was ducking holding any kind of trial until after the election.

Serious question -- given that Bragg got the conviction, what is the ethical problem with his decision to charge? If he were a Pennsylvania lawyer, what Pennsylvania ethical rule says he shouldn't have brought the charges?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You could’ve just said, “I’ve no retort of any merit.”

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” - Stalin’s Chief of Secret Police

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...r-brought.html

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...d-the-law.html

And like it or not, my assessment, not your apologist’s justification, is the consensus. On the eastern seaboard (and we’re what counts), nobody treats that conviction as real.

Similarly, nobody treats Cannon’s dismissal as real. That too was a nakedly political move. Bragg and Cannon should both be fired from their positions for lack of ethics. Then they can open a firm together.

You run in some interesting (Minnesota definition) circles.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Not sure what you mean by "political." A DA's job is to prosecute people who commit crimes. Trump did things that were a crime under New York laws, and he was prosecuted. (You just said the trial itself was fair.) That refutes that claim that he was only prosecuted because of who he was. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Incorrect. The DA's job is to exercise discretion and not spend taxpayer money on cases for political gain. The money wasted on the Trump case could have been used in countless other prosecutions of serious criminal acts.

Bragg at the same time he chose to go after Trump was also refraining from prosecuting a number of other crimes, as have many prosecutors in large cities since the pandemic. Look it up.

Bragg abused his discretion for political gain against Trump solely based on who Trump was. It's so obvious that to have to write this seems absurd.

I'm not impressed by Andrew Cuomo's view on anything much, and am disappointed in you for thinking I might be. Why don't you tell me what Jon Herdman says about the Canadian women's team's use of drones?

I don't reply to ad hominems. Now offer your retort to Eli Honig's article.

Everyone -- everyone -- understands that Trump wants to be above the law. The red/blue divide in this country is whether he should be. So when you tell me the "consensus" is what Republicans think, it makes me think you should get out more. Seriously, no one thinks Trump hasn't been criming. But about half the country, a little less actually, but two-thirds of the Supreme Court, think he should get away with it.

That's too dumb and wildly untrue for reply.

I personally take a different view of what Cannon was up to. I think she was ducking holding any kind of trial until after the election.

I can see that. I hadn't considered that. Still, however, doing that is unethical. She has a duty to do her job, not issue bad rulings that make a mess of other ongoing cases and possibly set problematic precedent to make her job easier.

Serious question -- given that Bragg got the conviction, what is the ethical problem with his decision to charge? If he were a Pennsylvania lawyer, what Pennsylvania ethical rule says he shouldn't have brought the charges?

I would say what he did was criminal. He engaged in time theft for political gain, wasting thousands of hours and millions of dollars in state money (wages, experts, investigators, etc.) to engage in a political prosecution to aid his party and himself. He who engages in corruption is in violation of every atty ethics code. Just ask Rudy Giuliani. That Bragg was able to get an indictment and conviction is not exculpatory. The entire exercise was a waste of resources and works against the interest of NY State in maintaining the integrity of its prosecutors and judiciary. By doing what he did, Bragg has made NY appear a state where the prosecutor's office is politicized. By forcing it in front of Merchand, Bragg compelled the Court to endure a process that damages its perceived public integrity.

Bragg is no better in this regard than the fellow who pushed the Duke lacrosse case and lost his license as a result, or Giuliani. The only difference between he and Rudy is that Bragg could get away with what he got away with because the NY law was so poorly written he could offer a theory to the jury based on a predicate act he wasn't even required to divulge!

You might say that's just shrewd exploitation of the law. I think that is a fair defense of Bragg. I might make it as his ethics counsel myself. But I'm not sure it wins anything in the court of public opinion, which now perceives NY to have a crooked prosecutor and biased bench.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You run in some interesting (Minnesota definition) circles.

Address Eli Honig's article. Because that sentiment, and what he articulates, is the prevailing view of moderates. Ds and Rs.

The only people who are comfortable with the Bragg prosecution are Trump haters. Theirs is an emotional reflex - they have to defend it, no matter how skeevy the thing is, and looks.

I'm not interested in defenders of one side or another. Objectively, the Bragg prosecution was the sort of thing one sees in banana republics. A prosecutor running on the platform of not prosecuting numerous crimes as part of a justice reform platform nevertheless spends millions resuscitating a seven year old case his predecessor would not bring against a political target. During an election year. And sees nothing wrong with spending money so lavishly despite the fact that his city is struggling with budget shortfalls which are causing it difficulties in addressing prosecutions for property theft and violent crime.

This is okay?

Trump sought to have Bill Barr go after his enemies while in office. Did Barr do it? No.

It's never okay, and that people view Trump as an existential threat does not make it okay. The ends do not justify the means except to people like Donald Trump. But Trump is not the baseline for behavior. He is an example of how people should never behave. To become Trump to get Trump is a debasement. Bragg debased himself. And your defense of him debases you and everyone else who makes it.

And I say all of this as one who has concluded that the Jack Smith cases, entirely unlike Bragg's, are 100% defensible and properly brought. In fact, in the FL one, I do not see how Trump is not guilty.