It is, understandably, a requirement that police investigating a potential crime requisition key evidence for that investigation. Given all the things that can go on a computer without using the internet (including for instance user-generated pictures), the police might reasonably require the computer.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
But is a stand-in for a member of the group of usual Democratic voters who would vote third party in that hypothetical scenario.
Of course, you understand the intent perfectly well, and this is just quibbling.
Yes, and in perhaps twenty more electoral cycles (if we're exceptionally lucky) that progress might shift the Overton window or lead to a new major player. In the meantime, the more that progress grows, the more the Republicans win-- until the Supreme Court is entirely stocked with hyper-regressive shitbags, all existing worker protections and anti-discrimination laws are stripped away, access to abortion is further restricted, voting rights are carved out, etc. I know you see no practical difference between the D's and the R's in these areas, but most people do.
Of course, a transferable vote system would deal with this entirely, which is why neither main party wants it.
More to the point, I've identified the mechanism by which voting for someone's preferred candidate makes it easier for their least favoured candidate to be elected.
Last edited:
a) Because the alleged offense was "possesses illegal porn", not "has seen illegal porn on the internet". Not even sure there is a case to be made from latter.
b) because it is not exactly trivial to "look up someones interned footprint". How would you even do that ? You would need to get the various IPs they might use in various places, several of them probably shared with other people, then you have to get traffic history from interned providers, which usually is linked to extra bureaucracy and they often don't even store it for that long. Then you must hope there was no encryption/other measured involved for actual illegal stuff. Then you have to actually analyze all of this which practically only means running it against your lists of confirmed illegal sources, missing everything else.
Or you could just have a look at what is on the laptop.
Not to mention that a lot of websites might contain content which is illegal, and also content which is not, in whatever your jurisdiction happens to be.
Hilary said Trump was an illegitimate president first and also lied about the "Russia collusion". Now blue states are unconstitutionally removing Trump from the ballot (which will get reversed). But that's very democratic now isn't it?
What does it have to do with the right-wing?
That you believe you want less.
SCOTUS hasn't made a horrible decision yet.
That's how they trick people into constantly voting for them, it's not about what they will do for you, it's about how awful the other side is.
I don't really see what's undemocratic about removing candidates who committed serious crimes. If you did a coup you shouldn't be allowed to run. That seems like a very simple concept everyone can agree on.
And while Clinton venting is definitely a sign of bad sportmanship its not like she took this to the extreme of pressuring Biden to crown her president and trying to have him killed when he refused. Also given how Trump was installed against the explicit wish of the electorate one can at least cast doubt on his legitimacy.
Racism, sexism and homophobia are pretty strong indicators of the far-right. There's quite a strong causal relationship between them.
I'm able to determine my own political priorities, thank you. You don't get to decide them for me.
For you personally. But you don't seem to be able to acknowledge things that impact other people, if don't personally disadvantage you.
Yep, political messaging is shit, no argument from me there. Yet the message just so happens to also be true in this respect.
Only an utter fool thinks there's meaningful parity between these: that comparison is a peanut gallery stunt, not a serious argument.
Hillary only called Trump "illegitimate", and in the wider context of gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. She didn't orchestrate a series of schemes and scams including encouraging a mob to storm the Capitol in order to subvert the election.
I think you are confused about how the law works. We can't know whether something is legal or not until it is tested in court.
At face value, there is law which can be interpreted to state that someone who has carried out an insurrection against the USA may not stand as a presidential candidate. There are clearly reasonable grounds to accuse Trump of this, and it is right and proper the courts test what the limits of this law are, which will then establish precedent. So cases have been brought, and at least one court found it credible enough. It will then go to a higher level court as it should. It may well be rejected, but it is asinine to think no-one should, or would, ask such an important question under the circumstances.
Also key to your misrepresentation of this is that Democratic states have not been initiating these attempts to remove Trump from the ballot. They are being initiated by voters, in many cases (e.g. Colorado) Republican ones.
It's the law, and the USA is supposedly founded on the basis of the rule of law.
Our democracies also don't permit the 51% who won an election to murder the 49% who lost, but complaining that isn't "democratic" is neither intelligent nor interesting.
He didn't commit any crime, you have to be charged and convicted. Plus, I'm pretty sure it's a federal issue as it's a federal law (constitution). You mean trying to get the opposing candidate in some political fiasco by lying is healthy for democracy?
Institutional racism isn't a far-right thing, just a normal societal thing of people not liking others that are different.
I'm not. Just saying you (or anyone) may think one party is better for you and your beliefs, but that doesn't make it objectively true. Like people believe defunding the police will make things better but that doesn't mean it will make things better.
What did they actually make the wrong legal decision on?
It's not true.
And trying to entwine the opposing candidate in a political fiasco (that lasted years into his presidency) isn't a coup under a different name? Both sides gerrymander and gerrymandering isn't even a thing in the presidential election unless you're saying the borders of the actual states were gerrymandered.
It's a federal law and under federal jurisdiction.
Democrats have been trying to get Trump removed from office before he even got elected. That's not very democratic. You all seem to love democracy until the majority doesn't agree with you.
The majority never agreed with Trump's presidency if that's what's important to you.
it actually matters whether you're talking about one person or a huge number of people.
If you don't want to acknowledge the exceptional prevalence of racism, sexism and homophobia in the far-right, then that's just ostrich-head-in-the-sand territory.
"Better" isn't an objective term. None of this is objective.
The point is, I'd end up with a party that reflects what I want even less.
You're just going to fawningly support any decision I cite. Suffice it to say their priorities are deeply out of step with the majority of progressive voters.
"Nuh-uh" isn't going to convince people to consider the two parties equivalent.
No, it's not a coup, that's just more obfuscatory hyperbole to fabricate false equivalence.
Coups are by their nature illegal (and usually violent): Trump was impeached through standard legal process. Secondly, the USA operates a system where a president is elected together with a vice president, and the VP takes over if something adverse happens to the president; thus continuity of the office would remain even had he been impeached.
Which one? There are multiple potential crimes under discussion here.
This isn't about democracy, it's about law and good governance. If you're not familiar with Trump's many decades of well-chronicled conduct before he ran for president, I suggest you brush up on it: fraud, stiffing contractors, stiffing creditors, pathological dishonesty, and myriad other sins. Leopards, as the saying goes, do not change their spots. Outside the legal principle of presuming innocence, you can probably think of few people less deserving of presumed innocence, because he is a decades-long study of corruption and venality. When we also consider the severity of the accusations against him, these are massive. The Trump-Ukraine controversy is at least at the same magnitude of what sank Nixon.
"Democracy" does not give anyone a free pass on criminality, corruption and heavy scrutiny.
Also, I can't help but point out that the majority voted against Trump in both 2016 and 2020.
sort of. anyway, if it's one person, then that is not deciding the election. if it's half the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party is likely to be finished in short order and something better can take its place. Something which won't demand the blood of tens of thousands of Gazan children to purchase half-hearted rhetoric condemning the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Nonsense. Trying to use abuse of power and violence to prevent the legitimate government from taking office and installing a false one in its place is a coup. Simple as that.
Because the conduct of the Republican party in the last few years has totally validated the idea that if the democrats lost their base, they'd gracefully allow a newcomer to enter with any meaningful power.