51
DnD Central / Re: Maps-Maps-Maps! ?
61% in Germany. 62% in Estonia. What explains the fact that the numbers are so low and so close to each other, compared to 83% in Lithuania and 90% in Finland?
Messages
This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ersi
61% in Germany. 62% in Estonia. What explains the fact that the numbers are so low and so close to each other, compared to 83% in Lithuania and 90% in Finland?
52
DnD Central / Re: The Awesomesauce of the American 2024 Presidential Elections
Americans with their stupid non-system where the president has the freedom to be a treasonous nepotist election-denying incompetent buffoon and run again without any repercussions to himself while all his lawers and more eager supporters are being jailed left and right. And that this idiotic campaigning takes years in enormous cost of time, money and nerves. Oh Lord have mercy.
Good that this is over and done with now. Except if one of the main party candidates dies and the not the other....
53
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.This is exactly my point, knowing that "conservatives" and "literalists" in USA do not acknowledge the concept of human rights, even though Declaration of Independence of USA takes it "to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It's an enlightenment concept, not a World Court concept.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.
A country that is in denial of this concept is not an enlightened country. It is in plain evidence now that what Declaration of Independence proclaims does not obtain in the legal and moral sense of the inhabitants of the country at all. The bussing of immigrants is a clear example that the moral turpitude is not limited to Oakdale rednecks in the country, but it is a general state of mind among the country's officials and jurists. As follows:
The flights last month, carrying 48 migrants, attracted international attention and drew condemnation from Democrats as well as several legal challenges. Mr. DeSantis immediately claimed credit for what appeared to be a political maneuver — dumping dozens of asylum seekers on the doorstep of Northeastern Democrats who have resisted calls to clamp down on immigration.The fact that DeSantis is using the budget of his own state to bus immigrants of another state (since his own state does not have such readily abusable immigrants) to a third state should be an inter-state/federal legal challenge in multiple ways, but this is not the most pertinent point. The most pertinent point is that "legal challenges" in this article refer to lawyers trying to figure out whether there is something legally challengeable in this activity.[1]
If lawyers are puzzled about human trafficking on the level of governors of states, then clearly USA is a sad third-world dump when it comes to the legal framework concerning human trafficking.
Third, if you're in the country legally (i.e., have been processed by Border Patrol and have a scheduled court hearing) and I offer you a bus or plane ticket to -say- New York, that is not "trafficking". That is largesse.To reduce the concept of human trafficking as far as possible, its minimum key feature is the consent of the trafficked. Now, many people *want*, even desperately so, to get to a country that has been presented to them as a better country. They are lured by alleged opportunities. So people's want is not the kind of consent relevant to the concept. Trafficking comes in with a trafficker/smuggler who does the allegations of the work/living opportunities and then the opportunities don't obtain at the destination.
Say a pimp promising a different job to someone at a destination while the actual job ends up being prostitution — this is sex trafficking even when the pimp pays all the costs to the destination and provides accommodation at the destination. This should be easy peasy to understand for a ten-year-old, if not a five-year-old. For an Oakdale pimping is a largesse because he cannot afford it, but legally pimping is sex trafficking. In case of the bussing of immigrants, the perpetrators provide nothing at the destination.
DeSantis and Abbott qualify as human traffickers. Human trafficking is a serious crime when regular people do it, but lawyers in USA are puzzled about it when governors do it, so once again so much for being a law-and-order country where people allegedly have rights. Immigrants deserve more adequate information about their destination country: USA is a below-average third world dump where non-citizens have zero constitutional rights and there is no recourse against state officials. African smugglers advertise the EU as the place where everyone who crosses the border receives an Adidas jumpsuit, iPhone and a fully equipped apartment. Sorry, dear immigrants, the traffickers are lying to you.
1 There's a class action lawsuit that has amounted to nothing much thus far.↵
54
Hobbies & Entertainment / Re: Films and Books
I'm halfway through now and I guess I can recommend it too, even though I don't know what the final turn will be. The only other work I know from Kazuo Ishiguro is The Remains of the Day (the movie, not the book) and judging from that, no sharp turns are expected.
Klara and the Sun qualifies as science fiction. The first-person narrator Klara is an "artificial friend," preoccupied and constantly concerned with serving its human. In this sense the novel is similar with the main theme of The Remains of the Day. Also similar is the class society and the focus on mannerisms and etiquette.
But I'm expecting a science-fictiony turn in Klara and the Sun. Perhaps artificial intelligence sinking into abuse mode while failing to sense anything out of the ordinary?
As said, I'm only halfway through. Hope I did not spoil anything for anyone. Really lovely piece of literature it is.
55
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
FYI: Resident Aliens are both subject to U.S. jurisdiction and protected by most constitutional provisions — one obvious exception being the right to vote in federal elections.Your dilemma is as follows: If immigrants had no nominal rights, then USA would be under serious charge due to lack of legal framework for human rights at home. But if immigrants have nominal rights, then bussing them *is* human trafficking and against the law. Which way is it?
Either way I know both the legal situation and concrete facts better than you. You are not in a position to FYI anything. All your years on this forum you have provided very little factual information, but none that was not known already. Otherwise you have only provided so-called alternative facts, which are sometimes fascinating to observe for psychoanalytical purposes.
What? I'm now required to agree with anyone you call "conservative" or "literalist"?An entrenched Trumpite who did not see the insurrection happening and thinks Hillary is somehow crooked while Trump is not obviously lacks sufficient epistemological acumen to agree or disagree with anything.
(But I did note your failure to cite an example or culprit!The name and example is DeSantis. Come on, it's directly in the post you were responding to, inside the embedded quotes. Typical Oakdale dropping off half of the content when parsing sentences both when reading and writing. Since you are clearly overburdened with incoming information already, I won't bother you with any further details.Typical "ersi".)
56
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
I know this. Trump does not. His false argument for his victory is that he got more votes than anybody had ever seen, and he got even more the second time. Therefore "they stole it" even though all the traces of election theft are on him.But Trump will not be the overall winner of the presidential elections. He never got the popular vote ever onceHad you the ability and the inclination to pay attention, you'd know that winning the national popular vote doesn't matter...
Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way! (Her husband tried to tell her...but I guess she believed her own hype.Had you the ability and the inclination to pay attention, you would actually note that Trump is yet to learn it. And he is making absolutely sure that he learns this in the hardest way anyone has ever seen.
But of course, you prefer factless partisan delusions of grand propaganda. Hillary conceded within a day. Trump has still not conceded to this day. Are you paying attention? No, you are not. Facts are not your thing.
So you have not been paying any attention to this one either. The facts are as follows:My own opinion of DeSantis is that of course he should be in jail by now too, for bussing immigrants.Why? Once an "immigrant" is cleared by the federal authorities[1], they can go wherever they want! In fact, the constitution guarantees such freedom of movement.
The immigrants are taken to where they do not want to go. They are not going by themselves. They are taken to where nobody expects them, i.e. they are literally dumped at the destination. The name of the crime is human trafficking.
And you are completely clueless of the fact that the American constitution has been argued (by "conservatives" and "literalists") to guarantee literally nothing to non-citizens. You really have no grasp on law. Same as on facts.
Then again, this is to be expected in the Trump cult. As you were.
1 Processed and given a court date for an administrative hearing...↵
57
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
Are you off your meds, ersi?I take this as one of your regular reflexive projections. Being a hyperpartisan hypocrite you think everyone else is a hyperpartisan hypocrite, and also, being on meds you think everybody else must be on meds as well.
(BTW: I still prefer DeSantis for the 2024 nomination... Hope my mentioning it again doesn't cause you any "cognitive dissonance"; as if that were a possibility!)Sure enough this can be a possibility for you. It fits with your characteristic pattern by adding another layer of compulsive delusion. DeSantis is the Trumpiest of all Republican candidates. Maybe Ramaswamy would be Trumpier, but his skin colour prevents him from getting sponsors and supporters.
However, I have to warn you on two points. First, DeSantis is an actual politician. This means he is professionally guaranteed to disappoint you. He says Trumpy stuff, but he may very well turn around after he gets what he wants. And what does he want? As a politician, he wants the office, and do nothing with it. (On second thoughts, Trump also betrayed every promised value and principle once he got into office - actually he had already demonstrated that he has nothing to do with those values before he got into office -, but his supporters disregard this reality and stay with the Trump cult, so maybe this point will not deter you at all.)
Second, Trump is making sure that in the current Republican party no other candidate has a chance, except when Trump is literally gagged, handcuffed and thrown in jail. Or dies on the campaign trail. So if you want to stick with the likeliest winner among Republicans, it's Trump. But Trump will not be the overall winner of the presidential elections. He never got the popular vote ever once, despite his false claims to the contrary (which again should have been handled in the court system years ago, if law and order matters) and this time the establishment will make sure his election manipulations are actionably countered.
Edit: My own opinion of DeSantis is that of course he should be in jail by now too, for bussing immigrants. Or is there no legal punishment for that in USA? So much for being a law-and-order country then...
58
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
But we'll see what happens, no?So you lay all your love and hopes on Trump because he might become good in the future? Wait, this cannot be. You lay all your love and hopes on Trump because he is a Republican who worships power regardless of principles and so do you. You condone insurrection — as long as it is your guy doing it. This takes some major lack of legal and moral sensibilities.
Wow, you were able to dig up a fact for once! Well done! Trump banned Epstein from his parties in 2008 after Epstein had already become a legally certified pedophile. However, I spoke about 90's, when Trump and Epstein were, hm, very intimate business partners in the same business servicing (themselves first of all but also) the Hollywood & financial & (worldwide!) political elite who were keeping it under the radar.[1] They are both pimps.Trump should have been stopped at the latest when he was pimping together with Jeffrey Epstein back in the 90'sYou mean when he barred Epstein from his clubs? Let's add libel to the list...
Since you are a hypocrite with no principles, you are perfectly fine with a pimp (and a dictator insurrectionist, obstructor of justice, tax evader, business fraudster, serial adulterer etc. etc.) if he is in your beloved political party. But here's a minor hilarious note: in 2008 Trump was a Democrat, so how can you possibly look favourably at the fact that he banned Epstein? Oh, right, you have no principles, therefore anything goes.
Well, you are in good company with Trump: He has no principles either, neither moral, legal or political! His main desire is to do stuff like shoot people on the Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it. And to pay no taxes because that makes him smart. Is there something similar you need to get away with too? You can open up here, we won't tell anyone
Until now I assumed you still had some way to go until absolute irreversible depravity. I didn't realise I had some way to go to drop all assumptions.
1 Edit: As a corollary, Trump has/shares dirt (in Russian, kompromat) on those people. This partly explains why the political elite (of both parties) and the judicial system pamper him on issues that would get an average person ostracised and jailed many times over. It's not due process that protects him. It's corrupt privilege. This corruption is part of why it can be reasonably expected that Supreme Court lets him off the hook with all aspects of the insurrection. The other part is that it is a solid political tradition that the president of USA has no accountability, and Trump did the insurrection while he was president, so there. For the same reasons, a similar outcome can be expected in the election theft case (which Trump will naturally appeal all the way to the Supreme Court), but perhaps not (one would hope, if law and order matters) in the case of theft of state documents, because that one he perpetrated while moving out of office.↵
59
DnD Central / Re: MJuch of modern news here in the UK a waste of dashed time
No Trump though, apparently. Trump was Epstein's neighbour, so he did not need to use Epstein's jet.I'm happy to see that I was wrong and Trump is in fact present on the newly published list of names.
Mirror: Jeffrey Epstein: Complete list of names revealed in unsealed court documents
Prince Andrew, who was basically caught in the act and should have been locked up by the authorities immediately as per law and order, put himself behind lock and key upon this news.
60
DnD Central / Re: What's the point of F1 Motor Racing?
Boat and car racing never really seemed so exciting to me. I avoid some family members during Nascar races. That's just dreadful to try and watch.Here's for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95zO8uBroI
And this movie was good: Ford v Ferrari (2019)
But I liked this one better: Days of Thunder (1990)
61
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
You never seem to be concerned with about silly things like due process, trial by jury, and constitutional strictures... (I'm unfamiliar with the legal system in your country. Perhaps such concepts are unknown there?) If you don't like a man, to you he's guilty of anything you can come up with — or so it seems to me.Ever heard that delayed justice is no justice? And also injustice is not justice at all. For example, Michael Cohen went to prison for what Trump did, but Trump has escaped unscathed from what was apparently prison-worthy because the one who did his bidding went to prison. Examples of the same pattern abound in the insurrection, Trump's theft of elections, and business fraud. Many convictions in all of those cases, except for Trump. Instead he is being rewarded with de facto presidential immunity that he has no right to according to law.
Conclusion: You are the one utterly unconcerned about due process and constitutional strictures.
As to "trial by jury", I already had to point out to you that it is not an overarching standard even in USA, much less elsewhere. Notably, there is no trial by jury in Trump's New York case — and this is legal!
You are a fabulous combination of a legal cretin (defaulting to a legalistic viewpoint) and legal moron (oblivious of legal practice and content of law) at the same time. You adore Trump so much that, as he says, he could shoot a guy in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and you would still worship him, think of him as the paragon of virtue, embodiment of the holy principles of the constitution (or rather your misconstrual of them). Thus far he has "merely" been impeached twice as the president, led a coup attempt, convicted as a rapist, universally known as a proud pussy-grabber and serial adulterer, and been involved in about 500 (!) court cases related business fraud, tax evasion, financial embezzlement and bankruptcies throughout his career.
I may not like him, but the more interesting question is: By what reasoning can a (failed) principled and legalistic guy such as yourself get around to liking Trump? For me, liking is a minor point. The bigger point is that, if law and order matters, then Trump should have been stopped at the latest when he was pimping together with Jeffrey Epstein back in the 90's. Clearly, for you, liking (more properly adulation and unconditional worship) matters more than law and order.
62
DnD Central / Re: If the Confederates had won.....!
Except Haley said what she said, and she is the presidential candidate, not you! So she represents the Republican party. Well, of course you honestly think Trump's pro-KKK comments are better than Haley's and don't reflect the same mindset at allSo the current Republican Party is the ideological heir of ConfederatesPerhaps Haley thinks so. She may be as clueless as you...
So, no: The current Democrat party is still the ideological heir of the Confederates...
63
DnD Central / Re: If the Confederates had won.....!
1 Namely, Nikki Haley did not mention Lincoln in her statements and, frankly, given the way her statements are construed, Lincoln's actual historical role does not fit in.↵
64
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
With two states (by different means) removing Trump from their ballots and the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to adjudicate the Trump appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's "decision", what do you expect to happen?I honestly expect the injustice to continue. I expect the Supreme Court to reason as follows, literally: "The constitution says to take the insurrectionist off the ballot, but MAGA QAnon crowd (including OakdaleFTL, oh the terror!) might get upset, therefore let's give Trump a free pass and let's hope the voters will make the right choice." Except the American voters have demonstrated themselves making ever stupider choices, such as unconditional immersion in factless partisan sociopathy, believing it to be free speech protected by the first and second amendments of the constitution.
You have an active former insurrection leader pussy-grabbing convicted rapist tax evader business fraudster self-proclaimed dictator wannabe currently under indictment for 91 crimes holding half of America's political spectrum hostage and everybody — the "moderates", the other party, and all branches of government — pretends they cannot do anything. If this pretension is true, then you have no laws, no legal system, no justice worth the name! For the sake of merciful generosity, I would like to assume the pretension is a manifestation of paralysing cowardice. I would like to assume that the legal and judicial systems have the tools to take care of the direct threat to the country, yet they are scared to do their sworn duty. They pretend they are doing their best and it has no effect.
How is the proudly unhinged serial public menace still on the loose after all his court pleas have been found frivolous and his testimonies self-incriminating and many of his closest minion accomplices already behind bars for following his orders? Because there is no law and order in USA when it comes to the biggest crooks, that's why.
After the coup attempt and unanimous partisan acquittal of the impeachment(s), why is the Republican Party still a thing? Because there is no political system worth the name in USA, that's why.
And you are willingly complicit, cheerleading Trump's crimes on this forum. Let your hypocrisy continue this year.
And happy anniversary! (of the insurrection)
Some commentators say that the most prudent thing to do would be to disqualify (and convict) Trump because of the insurrection and then also pardon him to pacify redneck voters (such as MAGA/QAnon/yourself, KKK and Christian Nationalists). In my view the problem with this is that the disqualification would have to be real, i.e. Trump should stay in home detention rest of life to avoid his election theft and interference. The more likely outcome is that, if these commentators got their way, the pardon would have the effect of letting Trump go on and continue as if the disqualification and conviction did not happen, i.e. it would be a judicial procedure of no consequence whatsoever, exactly like all judicial action around him has been thus far.
65
DnD Central / Re: If the Confederates had won.....!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGvflDv8_Dc
66
DnD Central / Re: If the Confederates had won.....!
A voter in New Hampshire on Wednesday asked [the presidential candidate Nikki Haley] what caused the [American Civil] war.In the minds of Republicans, the Confederates won the American Civil War. Because according to them reality is the current state of their wishful thinking. As a political force, this is not to be underestimated, because due to the two-party system this is half of their political spectrum.
Appearing startled by the question, she did not name slavery in her response.
"I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do," she said.
Her remarks were quickly criticised by the voter who asked the question. He said that it was "astonishing" that she answered without mentioning the word slavery in the year 2023.
"What do you want me to say about slavery?" Ms Haley responded.
67
DnD Central / Re: Infrastructure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yDtLv-7xZ4
I'd go even further. An enormous problem with all "urbanist" channels is the disproportionate focus on bike infrastructure. The obvious major problem with bike infrastructure is two-fold:
1. It is for bikes (and not for other traffic, such as walkers or wheelchair people)
2. It is infrastructure, meaning it needs to be built and maintained. It is not something naturally arising from the landscape.
The point number two I direct against Not Just Bikes himself just a few videos back when he lavishly praised the Driebergen-Zeist train station in Netherlands. The huge problem that I have with Driebergen-Zeist train station is that it took lots of bulldozing to rework the landscape around the station. In the latest video he repeatedly denounces bulldozing, but in the train station video he did not notice that the landscape around the station used to be perfectly flat and it took lots of bulldozing and infrastructure constructing to give it its current design.
I am more radical than he is. I am anti-industrial in general. I prefer a more minimal infrastructure where everyone can coexist on the same road with necessary special infrastructure only for trains such as here.
Other good points in the Montreal video:
Walkable Islands
Every city has some nice patches to walk on. The real test is whether these nice patches are connected to each other. In Miami conurbation, generally a quite destitute car-centric wasteland, has some lovely walkable beach parks and cozy shopping centres, but when you try to walk from one such place to another, you definitely end up stranded on a sidewalkless road somewhere.
The reason for the walkable islands problem is political or administrative. An area, a block or two, is given to a single developer. This ensures a more or less coherent design for that area. It may be a good or bad design, but it will be more or less coherent as envisioned by the developer. At the same time it often also ensures that there will be no cohesion with anything around that area.
A related political problem is the current hype of bike infrastructure. When a city expresses willingness for bike infrastructure projects, they get funding more easily. In reality the city councillors are always far more concerned about preserving the car infrastructure: Talk about bike infrastructure is just to get the funding. So when it comes to actually building for bikes, the bike infrastructure is either placed incoherently in quiet streets that do not strictly need any special bike infrastructure or alongside highways that lead into bushes outside the city centre. The do *not* build infrastructure in busy highway-like central city streets where it is needed the most and where it would effectively moderate other traffic. And whatever bike infrastructure they build is uncontiguous and disjointed; there will be no unified network of bike lanes ever. All this is in evidence in Montreal and I have not seen "urbanists" take proper notice until very recently.
Hauptbahnhof test
This test involves walkability starting with a city's main railway station. I have mentioned earlier on this forum the walkability of airport surroundings for the same purpose. If main stations, ports and transport hubs are not approachable by pedestrians, then they are not meant for travelling. But main stations, ports and transport hubs are definitionally meant for travelling, so they should definitionally accommodate pedestrian travel also.
Privatised underground city
Sometimes in city centres traffic is deemed so dense that some of it is moved underground, be it rail, motor or pedestrians. When people are moved underground, it is rather hostile to let them walk in plain tunnels, so it is considered friendlier to surround them with some shops and the like. Moving pedestrians underground can be bolstered with the argument of saving them from weather, but plans of this kind transparently award a single firm a construction of what is essentially a massive underground shopping centre. This can have poor outcomes such as leaving the surface traffic unfixed or being even detrimental to it, if the entire idea is that constructing an underground shopping centre is in and of itself the fix. Shopping centres tend to hit smaller shops in the same area, meaning that the commercial atmosphere on the surface street may suffer. And finally, shopping centres tend to be closed outside shopping hours and in those times pedestrians would have to face the situation on the surface as it has become, even though the underground infrastructure was supposed to spare them from it.
68
The Lounge / Re: The Holiday Greetings Thread
Merry Christmas, forum!
69
DnD Central / Re: MJuch of modern news here in the UK a waste of dashed time
Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, RFK jr, Noam Chomsky, Ehud Barak of Israel, Thorbjørn Jagland of Norway, Barclays, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan big wigs, Rothschilds, Clintons and so on and so on...
No Trump though, apparently. Trump was Epstein's neighbour, so he did not need to use Epstein's jet.
70
DnD Central / Re: Infrastructure
https://sumin.lrv.lt/uploads/sumin/news/images/852x536_crop/5302_a68ffd7ccf3316728f5199bbd7f64086.jpg
Note the single track and the combination with local rail gauge on the same track. And I note that in jax's chart there is no seamless connection from Tallinn to Berlin. Nothing is as was advertised to the public and nothing looks the way the CGI plans were drawn.
So the time to take another look at the status of this nonsense is about 2040 now? Okay.
71
DnD Central / Re: I'm bemused: No one here wants to discuss the Gaza-Israel war
Who am I kidding. You will certainly be more whacky.
You (obviously don't) see, there is a difference between people and their country/government/statehood. For example, you are an American but you hate your government. By your own (il)logic, you are therefore anti-American! When will you stop being racist and genocidal against Americans? Yeah, you didn't even know you were one of those!
Similarly, being anti-Zionist does not make one necessarily a Jew-hater. And I am not even anti-Zionist, just anti-genocide. There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews. And there are human rights activists in Israel who have to denounce their own government actions right now based on human rights principles. Oh, for a moment I forgot that you have no place for human rights in your system. Well, so much about that then.
Anyway, Israel's statehood has not been under threat at all this century. They sit very comfily where they are. A bit too comfily one might say.
By the way, did you know that during the Six-Day War Israel deliberately attacked a U.S. spy ship? It was not an accident but an indiscriminate assault against everyone they saw. Everyone was the enemy. Israeli command knew what the ship was, whose it was, where it was, and sent a wave of fighter jets to destroy it. But USA betrayed the veterans of the ship and reconciled with Israel, becoming their guardian ever since and hushing down the facts about the incident for decades. The incident is called USS Liberty. Look it up. If you had a fact-based mindset, your love of Israel would undergo some moderation.
Yeah, so much that you don't know, and not any willingness to learn anything...
Have a good one
72
DnD Central / Re: I'm bemused: No one here wants to discuss the Gaza-Israel war
Israel should bend the neck, and wait for the sword to drop?Israel has not been in this kind of danger for a second in this conflict. Not in this century.
73
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
But — What fun when Biden is disqualified on (technically spurious federal) grounds! (Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida...)Different from you, I have no partisan bone to pick on this issue. Let Biden go to jail, I don't care. If Biden goes to jail, but not Trump, it proves what I already know: USA is not a country of law or order or any valuable principle worth emulating. I know this because Trump is not in jail. He objectively deserved to decades ago (when he was still Democrat by the way
As I cautioned: "An ounce of perception is worth a pound of presumption"
), but instead he was rewarded with presidency.Whereas you have nothing but partisan bone to pick. It's particularly hilarious since nobode else has.
74
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
State Supreme Courts do not decide U.S. Constitutional matters...Obviously they need to follow the U.S. constitution, right?
While the 14th Amendment's Section Three prohibits "insurrectionists" from office, the required act of congress to effect this prohibition was made and needs be followed.How about all those other state Supreme Courts who have rulings on the very same point - whether Trump qualifies or not under Section 3 of Amendment XIV of U.S. Constitution - in Arizona, Minnesota and Michigan? Nothing to say against them, because they decided the other way? That's a hypocrite again...
The effecting statute has not been followed. (I.e., no lawful prosecution has taken place...)
Hence, no determination of guilt has been reached — by law. And -obviously- no punishment that deprives a citizen of his rights can be applied.
Q.E.D.
You are not just full of bunkum, but full of utter, total and complete bunkum, easily debunked. State Supreme Courts are serially issuing rulings on the matter. They are judges judging without jury. They do not care about your alternative universe where you think you are the supreme legal expert.
Edit: Here's some actual legal expertise:
Congress should take action to enforce Section Three against anyone engaged in the January 6th insurrection. There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three, and if this deficiency is not addressed many problems will follow. First, some states may simply choose to ignore Section Three or do minimal enforcement. Second, having each state enforce Section Three in its own way will result in a haphazard system especially ill-suited to resolving a question of presidential ineligibility. Third, if former President Trump runs again, his eligibility must be determined promptly--before any elections take place--otherwise the Republican nominating contest will be thrown in chaos. But the ability of the ex-President or his opponents to engage in litigation gamesmanship during a primary process where each state is acting independently could easily thwart a prompt resolution by the Supreme Court. And it would be particularly unfortunate if the Court were called upon to resolve the issue in an emergency application for a stay on the eve of a primary where due deliberation on the arguments could not occur.So there, to reiterate, "There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three," so everybody just does what they think they should or can. The article continues:
Congress can resolve many of these issues by using its enforcement authority under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to create a rational and fair process for Section Three claims.This is a noble hope, but also vain one. The current Congress has just one thing on its mind: Partisan bickering. No law, no order, no principle, no morals, nothing matters. Just senseless partisan bickering.
75
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Since you think you know better, lay out the argument to demonstrate that Colorado Supreme Court did anything they should not have done. The fact is that Supreme Courts decide, whatever it is they decide, without jury. And they decide constitutional matters, which is what Section 3 of Amendment XIV is.you do not know that Supreme Courts (both of the states and federal) do not do jurys in the cases they pick up for their own judgement?In the Federal Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution stipulates which cases are the purview of the court. Can you show an exception for any State Supreme Court?