Create a blog and I'll look at it, but I certainly would not agree and have not ever agreed that politicians have criminal immunity, especially on the grounds that as long as everyone in office is breaking the law it's okay.
Can an argument get more ridiculous than that?
Especially when in the same breath you're harping on about election observers standing closer to make sure other election workers are following the rules.
I have already pointed out to you the logical fallacy that a lot of people believing something does not automatically confer truth, nor accuracy. A lot of people are Catholics, but that doesn't prove the Buddhists wrong.
Rank does not automatically lead to truth, nor accuracy, either. That's evident from the people who are pleading in Trump's criminal cases, or the Republicans in government who are contradicting themselves depending upon the direction of the wind.
This blog is not about Biden and trying to make it so is a deflection, but saying you think the 'other side' is as bad, or much worse does imply you know that the 'side' is bad.
They weren't rhetorical questions in your case. The stories you make up about anything and everything precludes you from an assumption of rationality.
When you are sarcastic and avoidant, however, it's safe to assume you haven't the courage to admit truth and fact.
I was precisely getting to the nitty gritty of your allegation that it's a politically unfair game to assess whether Trump is disqualifed under the terms of the constitution.
Rational, truthful people will understand that some boundaries with respect to whom may run for president are necessary, or desirable.
Rational, truthful people will understand that the constitution sets out those boundaries and they should be applied by law, or altered by law, not by a unilateral decision, nor a general election vote.
A general election is the democratic due process whereby citizens may vote for the selected candidates for the presidency. It is not the due process to decide if a candidate is eligible for presidential office.
And you do want Trump to have his entitlement to due process, right? Of course not, you want Trump to receive his legal right to due process when it favours him, but for his right to due process to be abandoned when it doesn't. That's your idea of a fair game, right?
I had wondered if there was support for her on some patform, or another. If the world is watching in some way maybe she is slightly less likely to fall out of a window, or end up in a chilly part of the country.
Otherwise, I can't fault your 'live well' philosphy.
Do you think it would a politcally unfair game to say a two year old can't run for president and that the people should have the right to vote for that child?
So, you think it would politcally unfair game to say a two year old can't run for president and that the people should have the right to vote for that child?
These aren't criminal trials, so there is no criminal conviction.
The application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment involves civil litigation which addresses disputes between people, or organisations.
When Trump was found liable for s*xual abuse and defamation against E Jean Carroll and Judge Kaplan affirmed that he did indeed rape Carroll, it was in the context of a civil suit, not a criminal one. It resulted from a jury reaching a verdict based upon the preponderance of the evidence, a much lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal conviction. That's why he was ordered to pay $5M, rather than go to prison for up to a life term.
If Trump had responded to Carroll's allegations without defaming her, he would have got away with raping her scot free.
Likewise, finding that Trump incited an insurrection in a civil court based upon the preponderance of evidence is not enough to criminally convict him. It is, however, due process, i.e. fair treatment through the normal judicial system before an impartial judge in a civil suit.
Whether Trump is disquaified from the primary ballot will depend upon each state's laws, each court's findings and due process through to the appellate courts.
For example, Michigan state law has no provision for disqualifying anyone from the primary ballot: a 23 year old born in Luxembourg could be on the Michian primary ballot. It's only if that candidate wins the primaries can Michigan sue to have them disqualified from running for presidential office according to the 14th Amendment.
Indeed, that is exacty what has happened in Michigan: whilst Trump has not been disqualified from the primary ballot because there is no legal provision for that action, the Michigan courts have recognised that there is recourse for the state applying 3/14 should Trump win the primaries.
Whether Trump is eventually disqualified from being on some primary ballots, or not, it doesn't mean he'll be disqualified from all the states' primary ballots unless there is a federal ruling from the US Supreme Court to do so. Being disqualified from the primary ballot in some states may not affect who wins and Trump may yet become the Republican candidate running for the presdency despite being found to have incited insurrection.
Trump will not be convicted of insurrection based upon these civil cases. If you want to huff about him being criminally convicted on charges related to him inciting insurrection, you're going to have to wait for any positive outcome in the Washington conspiracy and Georgia RICO cases.
Until such a time, or indeed if criminal insurrection charges are brought and proven against Trump in the future (unlikely), you (the OP) are spreading misinformation.
It's a question that is asked for dramatic effect or to make a point.
An answer is not expected, nor necessarily wanted.
An example of a rhetorical question might be, "Do you have to chew with your mouth open?"
Or:
The effect, or point is to highlight that cutting people's genitals off is an abusive behaviour, just as child sex abuse is an abusive behaviour.
You cannot end abuse by abusing someone. You merely join in with and perpetuate abuse. You become the abuser, the person you despise.
It is entirely within your control whether you respond to to one of my posts, or rhetorical questions, or not. In fact, it's entirely within your control whether you even read my comments.
I assumed you would never say those things about women, ergo they are equally egregious and reprehensible things to say about men.
That was the whole point of swapping the gender in that scenario. It's a useful technique for examining discrimination, gender, or otherwise.
Okay, you don't understand what 'psychotic' means.
Women don't become mentally unwell with a psychotic symptoms because they treat men with contempt whilst men try to placate and soothe them. That's just an unhealthy interaction, or unhealthy relationship, not the cause of hallucinations, or delusions.
You shouting and demanding certain behaviours from me in this medium is unlikely to gain you control over me. That should be obvious to any reasonable adult.
If a woman had her genital area hacked away with a razor by her husband, would that be an appropriate way to intimidate other women into behaving themselves sexually?
Should attempting to control all women's behaviour s*xual through the threat of gross violence be a social norm?
In Brazil the age of consent is 14 years old and below that age s*xual penetration is statutory rape. However, it appears that between the ages of 14 and 18 s*xual activity with a minor is still a criminal offense.
Various news sources describe the s*xual offense as cheating, a relationship, bedded, sleeping with, an affair. These are wholly inappropriate ways of describing the abuse of a 15 year old girl by a 39 year old man.
Neither is it appropriate to cut off someone's p*nis, relish in the story, nor sensationalise it in the media.
How are we to address child sex abuse if it's exploited for entertainment? Isn't that exploiting the child twice with a complete disregard for the impact on her?
I wasn't asking what the UK government could do when I said 'we'.
I am not a part of the UK government.
The UK has a second generation immigrant Prime Minister who was not voted in by the people and who appears to believe that immigration is for the privileged and wealthy like his parents. He appears to believe that it's acceptable to let desperate people die rather than enter the UK and claim refugee status.
I doubt very much Rishi Sunak would suddenly become humane about the desperate and dying in Russia.
'We', in my post, referred to those of us who are reading your blog.
'Swatting' would imply a false report of a violent emergency situation such as a shooting, or hostage situation that would require a SWAT team response.
It doesn't sound much like Marjorie Taylor Greene and her family experienced a SWAT team response for the eighth time, certainly not like Breonna Taylor experienced a SWAT team response.
I'm not saying it's acceptable for people to be making false reports to the police.
I'm saying that using language that implies a SWAT team did their thing eight times, including on Christmas day appears to be...ummm... ...false reporting.
Oh, hang on...
I'd glady swat the backs of Marjorie Taylor Greene's childish knees for her if she wants to report something accurate and truthful for a change.
I don't like my name being used to have a pop at someone, especially when it's someone I like, someone I have a lot of respect for and when I have absolutely no feckin' idea what's going on anyway.
If I want to have a pop at someone, I'm big enough and ugly enough to do that myself.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
...false reporting.
RE: Due Process Of Law
Create a blog and I'll look at it, but I certainly would not agree and have not ever agreed that politicians have criminal immunity, especially on the grounds that as long as everyone in office is breaking the law it's okay.Can an argument get more ridiculous than that?
Especially when in the same breath you're harping on about election observers standing closer to make sure other election workers are following the rules.