All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Mister Mets]

Question for those here: In the purely hypothetical situation where you are called for Jury duty for one of Donald Trump's cases, Do You Think You Could be Impartial Enough to be an actual juror? If the Judge asked the group of potential jurors that you are with to raise their hands if they thought they Could Not be impartial, would you raise your hand or would you keep it lowered?

I think I could. I'm generally able to compartmentalize, and to understand important legal distinctions like the difference between reasonable doubt and more likely than not, or even the difference between what's legal and what's good.

They definitely wouldn't want me because of all the posts insulting Trump, and my English major background would make me seem like someone eager to get a book deal out of the experience.

[Tami]

Good point

Watching MSNBC and heard her referred to as Moscow Marjorie. Add that to the list of nicknames.

[Tami]

I think I could. I'm generally able to compartmentalize, and to understand important legal distinctions like the difference between reasonable doubt and more likely than not, or even the difference between what's legal and what's good.

They definitely wouldn't want me because of all the posts insulting Trump, and my English major background would make me seem like someone eager to get a book deal out of the experience.

You know I hadn't considered the book deal angle. This is 2024 version of 12 Angry Men, only it's likely to be 12 Soon to be Famous Jurors.

[Jack Dracula]

And now, the clock is ticking down on Mikey Johnson’s tenure as Speaker. I’m sure Madam Howler Monkey, Rapey McForehead and Gym Jordan are ready to kick him out for daring to go against the Nodfather.

Moderate Republicans should contact their representatives, or any representatives and express their thanks and support of Johnson’s willingness to put country before party. Remaining silent encourages the crazies to continue to obstruct.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Question for those here: In the purely hypothetical situation where you are called for Jury duty for one of Donald Trump's cases, Do You Think You Could be Impartial Enough to be an actual juror? If the Judge asked the group of potential jurors that you are with to raise their hands if they thought they Could Not be impartial, would you raise your hand or would you keep it lowered?

Assuming Trump is in the courtroom, I'd look him straight in the eye, raise my hand and say: “No, your honor, I cannot be impartial towards the defendant because he’s a racist pig whom I’ve hated him since the early 1990’s when he tried to get five innocent men put to death and, as late as 2019, STILL wanted them executed. I cannot be impartial because as president, the defendant, who skipped out on military duty on a lie, mocked and insulted veterans like myself who fought and died for our country. And no, I cannot be impartial because the defendant stirred up an insurrection because he refused to be a man and accept having lost the election in 2020.”

Would I be allowed to say all that? Probably not, but, if I could, I would.

[aja_christopher]

You mischaracterized my post. I said "parental rights movement" is a vague term. You just quoted it. So you can see that I wasn't making a comment about conservative bigotry being vague.

Mets -- this was already addressed in an earlier post and links were provdided directly addressing their homophobic and racist behavior.

If you don't want to discuss the bigotry inherent within the conservative movement then so be it.

But don't waste people's time with lies, misdirection and deflection when you have repeatedly been provided with overwhelming direct evidence of Republican bigotry.

[babyblob]

Question for those here: In the purely hypothetical situation where you are called for Jury duty for one of Donald Trump's cases, Do You Think You Could be Impartial Enough to be an actual juror? If the Judge asked the group of potential jurors that you are with to raise their hands if they thought they Could Not be impartial, would you raise your hand or would you keep it lowered?

No way I could be impartial enough to be fair to Trump. It would be tempting to be on the jury just for a guilty vote but I would not do that. I have too much respect for the legal system to try and game it.

[babyblob]

All of these protests on the college campuses makes me worried about Biden and the young vote.

[Mister Mets]

You know I hadn't considered the book deal angle. This is 2024 version of 12 Angry Men, only it's likely to be 12 Soon to be Famous Jurors.

One point is that it also creates some incentives for outrageous behavior. The lone hung juror would probably get a bigger deal.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

All of these protests on the college campuses makes me worried about Biden and the young vote.

Young people need to grow up and read the writing on the wall. In a second Trump presidency, he’d order crackdowns on protests.

[Gray Lensman]

Young people need to grow up and read the writing on the wall. In a second Trump presidency, he’d order crackdowns on protests.

That and the alternative is even worse for their cause than they imagine Biden is. At least the guy behind "Uncommitted" is aware of that fact - he just wants to make Biden notice and change course on Middle Eastern policy. It IS working, but not as fast as people would like.

[Mister Mets]

Mets -- this was already addressed in an earlier post and links were provdided directly addressing their homophobic and racist behavior.

If you don't want to discuss the bigotry inherent within the conservative movement then so be it.

But don't waste people's time with lies, misdirection and deflection when you have repeatedly been provided with overwhelming direct evidence of Republican bigotry.

You're still wrong about what I said.

Here's the claim you were responding to.

You mischaracterized my post. I said "parental rights movement" is a vague term. You just quoted it. So you can see that I wasn't making a comment about conservative bigotry being vague.

It seems in general we're looking for different things here. You're looking for affirmation of your political views, so you want people to express the same conclusions you do.

I'm often looking to figure things out, so I'm not invested in a particular conclusion. I also think groupthink is bad, so I'll point out situations in which people seem to be mistaken, and saying things that they presumably do not intend to be taken literally. I don't think I need to persuade anybody here that white nationalism is bad, but people are more likely to say undisciplined left-wing points.

If you have a question for me, ask it a non-loaded way. If you're unwilling to do that, you probably shouldn't be criticizing me or anyone else for silence because it seems you're not willing to share some of your own views.

I believe that you mischaracterized my post.

Here's what I originally said. I'm putting in bold my comments about my understanding that "parental rights movement" is vague.

If you're talking about me, I've definitely discussed examples of bigotry and racism among Republicans and parent activists.

In this thread, I wasn't responding to a point about the Parental Rights Movement, but about a policy view that parents do not have any rights. Among other things this would mean that parents have no more right to choose to send their kids to a private school than someone has a right to drive through city streets at 30 MPH; these would both be laws that elected officials or bureaucrats can change.

The "parental rights movement" seems to be a vague term. This isn't like the Ku Klux Klan or the Green party where people can be card-carrying members and there are clear policy goals where everyone is aligned. There are some times parents are pissed off at schools and I'll think they're wrong, and other times parents are pissed off at schools and I'll think they're right. The term doesn't seem to exclusively apply to the most unreasonable parents.

You then responded that to argue that conservative bigotry is "vague" is some kind of excuse.

You've been given many different specific examples of where the Parents Rights Movement and organizations such as Libs of TikTok have engaged in openly homophobic behavior. You've been given many examples where Republicans have engaged in overtly racist behavior against black and brown voters. You've been given numerous examples of sexism within the Republican party with regards to women's rights -- up to and including the loss of abortion rights in numeous states -- all against the majority of public opinion.

You've also been shown numerous examples of how this behavior relates directly to white Christian nationalism and white supremacy both within America and abroad, with Republicans idolizing known white supremacists such as Viktor Orban and Tucker Carlson while turning a blind eye to the white nationalists both within their ranks and the one currently running the Republican party.

To try to argue that conservatives bigotry is "vague" at this point is little more than an excuse not to address it directly.

So when the issue of Republican bigotry is repeatedly "ducked" then you should apply that logic evenly.

Immigration has been discussed repeatedly and objectively on this forum to the point where even Mets had to admit that Republicans are lying about Democratic "open borders".

Republican bigotry -- which is at the root of many of these issues -- has not.

As stated at the beginning of the thread however -- there's no point in expecting any better this time around and that has proven to be true.

I was talking about a particular term.

It's nor an honorable tactic to say something untrue about a basic factual question (Did I use the phrase "vague" to refer to conservative bigotry or the question of who counts as part of the parents rights movement?), and then call me a liar and accuse me of misdirection when I note that you got it wrong.

[aja_christopher]

I believe that you mischaracterized my post.

The issue at hand here as has clearly been stated is the “Parents Rights Movement” and you still have yet to address the issues of bigotry and homophobic policy even after clarification.

Either address the bigotry or don't -- but don't waste people's time with transparent deflection from your support of a racist and homophobic political party led by a white nationalist candidate.

[aja_christopher]

Republican democracy.

And further hypocrisy as much of the voting fraud was done by Republicans who are led by an equally dishonest frontrunner.

This is what conservatives support and enact into policy -- just be honest about it.

Lies about "open" borders, unnecessary voting restrictions targeting black and brown people, illegal gerrymandering, anti-trans and LGBT legislation, a Supreme Court and state representatives that promote archaic laws from before the time women could even vote -- there's plenty for you to address if you ever decide to stop pretending not to see it.


-----

"GOP voter-fraud crackdown overwhelmingly targets minorities, Democrats"

"Black and Hispanic people made up more than 75 percent of defendants and Democrats nearly 60 percent in a controversial push by Republicans to prosecute election cheating, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by The Washington Post"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...ecutions-2020/

[hyped78]

Question for those here: In the purely hypothetical situation where you are called for Jury duty for one of Donald Trump's cases, Do You Think You Could be Impartial Enough to be an actual juror? If the Judge asked the group of potential jurors that you are with to raise their hands if they thought they Could Not be impartial, would you raise your hand or would you keep it lowered?

I don't think I can be neutral but I would make a distinction: I think it would be easier for me to be neutral on this hush money trial (I don't know much of the background and could thus concentrate on the objective evidence) than on a trial about Jan. 6th or election interference. In the latter two, I already have a lot of subjectivity and bias going in, that I won't probably be able to shake off.