Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Linking to the DoJ blathering on about how there are totally tons of terrorists is just--

Hey remember when hundreds of people stormed the Capitol to lynch Pence?

[Endus]

Linking to the DoJ blathering on about how there are totally tons of terrorists is just begging the question. If there were "plenty of terrorists", the FBI wouldn't need to concoct ridiculous pseudo-cells like the Michigan idiots - we'd see something that looks like the Irish Troubles, a situation with serious body counts, not the direction of massive federal resources at a few drunks ranting about how they're totally going to do something about that Whitmer.

Playing defense for right-wing terrorism is certainly a take.

https://bsos.umd.edu/featured-conten...rorist-attacks

[Spectral]

Playing defense for right-wing terrorism is certainly a take.

https://bsos.umd.edu/featured-conten...rorist-attacks

I'm not sure what you think you're proving with that link, but it demonstrates an across the board decrease in terrorism over the past few decades in the United States. Almost all of the fatalities are from 9/11 and Oklahoma City, with a few other jihadist and white supremacists attacks accounting for the majority of the remaining fatalities:

More than four-fifths (82%) of the people killed in terrorist attacks in the United States during this time period died as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Additionally, 5 percent of deaths resulted from the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The overall lethality of terrorist attacks that took place between 2010 and 2016 was lower than in the previous two decades; however, this time period was marked with several mass-casualty attacks that influenced trends. For example, of the 68 people killed in attacks carried out by jihadi-inspired extremists during this period, 49 died in Orlando, Florida as a result of a 2016 armed assault carried out by Omar Mateen. Fourteen others died in San Bernardino, California in a 2015 attack by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Likewise, nine of the 18 people killed by white supremacists or white nationalists died as a result of Dylann Roof’s 2015 attack at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Six others were killed when Wade Michael Page attacked worshippers at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

The idea that "right-wing terrorism" is a serious threat is a fabrication, a bedtime tale to keep the public willing to embrace an absurdly overreaching surveillance state. Political violence is just not common at all in the United States.

This is, of course, no "defense" of any terrorism; that you feel the need to frame anything I've written that way is pretty revealing of how mendacious of an actor you've become in the last few years.

[Endus]

I'm not sure what you think you're proving with that link, but it demonstrates an across the board decrease in terrorism over the past few decades in the United States. Almost all of the fatalities are from 9/11 and Oklahoma City, with a few other jihadist and white supremacists attacks accounting for the majority of the remaining fatalities:

And ends its analysis in 2016, just before the significant bump in right-wing extremism the last 6 years.

Fair point for me not providing fully up-to-date info, I guess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...errorism-data/

The idea that "right-wing terrorism" is a serious threat is a fabrication, a bedtime tale to keep the public willing to embrace an absurdly overreaching surveillance state. Political violence is just not common at all in the United States.

No, this is you hand-waving the threat of white nationalist terrorism; playing defense for them, for some godsforsaken reason.

This is, of course, no "defense" of any terrorism; that you feel the need to frame anything I've written that way is pretty revealing of how mendacious of an actor you've become in the last few years.

You're defending terrorism. You're hand-waving the threat it poses, to downplay the violence and harm they cause. That's what "defending" looks like. Are there other forms of defense? Sure. That doesn't mean those actions aren't also defenses. That's not a lie, and you're just engaging in tone-policing at this point, throwing off accusations you cannot actually support. Hell, you started out trying to claim that the data we do have can't be trusted, without actual justification.

[Edge-]

Linking to the DoJ blathering on about how there are totally tons of terrorists is just begging the question. If there were "plenty of terrorists", the FBI wouldn't need to concoct ridiculous pseudo-cells like the Michigan idiots

Honestly, it's not the FBI's fault that our legal system is busted and that you can have sympathetic extremists on a jury.

Do we need to take a short trip down memory lane to all the Black Americans convicted of crimes throughout history by racist white juries, regardless of the existence of exonerating evidence at the time? Who were convicted because the jury was a bunch of racist fucks?

They made plans. There was clear intent. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of extremists let one of their fellows off because, "it was just locker room talk."

[Spectral]

Honestly, it's not the FBI's fault that our legal system is busted and that you can have sympathetic extremists on a jury.

Do we need to take a short trip down memory lane to all the Black Americans convicted of crimes throughout history by racist white juries, regardless of the existence of exonerating evidence at the time? Who were convicted because the jury was a bunch of racist fucks?

They made plans. There was clear intent. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of extremists let one of their fellows off because, "it was just locker room talk."

The anger at the existence of juries is kind of a mask off moment, ain't it?

[Endus]

The anger at the existence of juries is kind of a mask off moment, ain't it?

Are you under the impression that a jury of your peers is a defense against verdicts rooted in bigotry and prejudice?

Because that's obviously a false statement.

[Edge-]

The anger at the existence of juries is kind of a mask off moment, ain't it?

If you actually read my post, I was quite specific about my frustrations with the jury system in the US.

If you have something to actually say, just come out and say it.

[Masark]

The anger at the existence of juries is kind of a mask off moment, ain't it?

No, anger at the eternal stupidity of American juries and also at your particularly moronic version of double jeopardy.

[Spectral]

Are you under the impression that a jury of your peers is a defense against verdicts rooted in bigotry and prejudice?

Because that's obviously a false statement.

I sure prefer it to the alternatives. I can't say I expected that we'd shuffle the deck on what's racist today and come up with "juries need to go, they're bigoted".

- - - Updated - - -

No, anger at the eternal stupidity of American juries and also at your particularly moronic version of double jeopardy.

Yeah, if you can't keep trying people until you get the result that the mob wants, is it really justice at all?

- - - Updated - - -

If you actually read my post, I was quite specific about my frustrations with the jury system in the US.

If you have something to actually say, just come out and say it.

I like juries. All systems of justice will have occasional failures, but given the testing that we've had of different systems over time, I rather like juries relative to any alternative that I'm familiar with. Exercising some basic Rawlsian logic, I rather prefer putting myself in the shoes of someone staring down a jury to looking across the bench at officious bureaucrat that just knows I'm guilty, which really seems to be the position you're taking here.

[unfilteredJW]

I sure prefer it to the alternatives. I can't say I expected that we'd shuffle the deck on what's racist today and come up with "juries need to go, they're bigoted".

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, if you can't keep trying people until you get the result that the mob wants, is it really justice at all?

- - - Updated - - -


I like juries. All systems of justice will have occasional failures, but given the testing that we've had of different systems over time, I rather like juries relative to any alternative that I'm familiar with. Exercising some basic Rawlsian logic, I rather prefer putting myself in the shoes of someone staring down a jury to looking across the bench at officious bureaucrat that just knows I'm guilty, which really seems to be the position you're taking here.

That last part? That’s done by juries as well based on nothing but skin color. But that’s the problem, you know that’s the issue being discussed.

Mask off indeed.

[Endus]

I sure prefer it to the alternatives. I can't say I expected that we'd shuffle the deck on what's racist today and come up with "juries need to go, they're bigoted".

The most common alternative is judicial decision. Pretty common here in Canada. Often a better option if you've got the facts of the law on your side, even in the USA.

Pretending jury systems don't have deep flaws is not an argument, it's willful ignorance. Particularly when the problems are the lack of controls and standards for said juries. A bigoted juror should be removed with cause. A system that won't do so is a system that enforces, in the case of the bigotries of the USA, white supremacy and Christian fundamentalist extremism.

Yeah, if you can't keep trying people until you get the result that the mob wants, is it really justice at all?

You don't get to appeal to a small mob in opposition to a bigger mob and pretend you're somehow more enlightened.

[Spectral]

The most common alternative is judicial decision. Pretty common here in Canada. Often a better option if you've got the facts of the law on your side, even in the USA.

I really could not give one shit less what your country does. I cannot even articulate how much I don't care what Canada does on this front. In the United States, the nation that you so very much want to subvert for some reason that you don't quite articulate, a jury trial is a clearly defined constitutional right. American vassal states can make different choices, I don't really care.

Pretending jury systems don't have deep flaws...

I didn't, you're lying. Again. I stated plainly that all systems have flaws.

You don't get to appeal to a small mob in opposition to a bigger mob and pretend you're somehow more enlightened.

What you're referring to as a "small mob" is a core principle of the justice system of my country. That you desire to subvert that says a lot about you and nothing about it's legitimacy. You're a subversive liar and I'm never going to treat you as though you're acting with even the slightest bit of good faith.

[Endus]

I really could not give one shit less what your country does. I cannot even articulate how much I don't care what Canada does on this front.

Counter-examples are kind of how discussion works. You're telling me you just want to blindly push the current American system as perfect unto itself solely because it's the American status quo and you don't want to hear about any other, possibly better, alternatives.

In the United States, the nation that you so very much want to subvert for some reason that you don't quite articulate, a jury trial is a clearly defined constitutional right.

There's no "subversion".

Also, plenty of things that are Constitutional rights at a given period shouldn't necessarily be. Slavery was a Constitutional right at one point.

I didn't, you're lying. Again. I stated plainly that all systems have flaws.

Then why not listen to ways to ameliorate those flaws?

What you're referring to as a "small mob" is a core principle of the justice system of my country.

It's a "mob" by the same definition as you used the term. If you find that objectionable, maybe don't engage in exactly the same kind of thing yourself.

That you desire to subvert says a lot about you and nothing about it's legitimacy. You're a subversive liar and I'm never going to treat you as though you're acting with even the slightest bit of good faith.

This is just open discussion about legal principles.

Calling that "subversion" is the most ridiculously jingoistic nationalist nonsense I've seen in quite some time. You may as well be calling me a "commie" or something, while you're at it.

Demanding principles go unexamined and dismissing all other systems solely for being non-American is not a reasonable basis for an argument. It's just empty, unthinking jingoism.

[Elegiac]

Counter-examples are kind of how discussion works. You're telling me you just want to blindly push the current American system as perfect unto itself solely because it's the American status quo and you don't want to hear about any other, possibly better, alternatives.

Questioning the effectiveness of trial by jury as practiced in a deeply biased system like the US is a mask off moment but referring to Canada as an American vassal state is not, apparently. Rofl.

What else can we expect from someone that openly repeats TERF talking points and has previously expressed support of the notion that race correlates with intelligence, though?

[s_bushido]

I really could not give one shit less what your country does. I cannot even articulate how much I don't care what Canada does on this front. In the United States, the nation that you so very much want to subvert for some reason that you don't quite articulate, a jury trial is a clearly defined constitutional right. American vassal states can make different choices, I don't really care.

I really enjoy how, when called out on your obvious horseshit, you resort to further garbage like this instead of actually trying to rebut any of the objective facts that are being pointed out to you. Facts like..."racist juries convict black people and acquit white people because they're racists."

But I never understood how paranoid right-wing dipshits ever thought that accusations of "subversion" like this were remotely convincing. Yes, people who want to change systems for the better pretty much have to "subvert" how those systems operate in order to make positive change. Because how those systems operate is wrong, or broken. Obviously.

[Jastall]

I really could not give one shit less what your country does. I cannot even articulate how much I don't care what Canada does on this front. In the United States, the nation that you so very much want to subvert for some reason that you don't quite articulate, a jury trial is a clearly defined constitutional right. American vassal states can make different choices, I don't really care.

I didn't, you're lying. Again. I stated plainly that all systems have flaws.

What you're referring to as a "small mob" is a core principle of the justice system of my country. That you desire to subvert that says a lot about you and nothing about it's legitimacy. You're a subversive liar and I'm never going to treat you as though you're acting with even the slightest bit of good faith.

Mere discussion of issues can only possibly be counted as subversion in an authoritarian state. Plus, "America's vassal state"? I really wouldn't throw stones from your glass houses about "mask off" moments after saying stuff like that.

[Edge-]

What you're referring to as a "small mob" is a core principle of the justice system of my country.

It's wild how defensive some people get when criticisms are levied like this. This is a democracy, we should be celebrating and encouraging this kind of critical look at our system of government in a constant effort to strive to improve it: Hence the mechanism of Amendments to alter the Constitution as a living document.

I absolutely think, especially given the long history of explicit racism with juries in US history (hence why it's now illegal to explicitly single jurists out by race), that critical discussion of "is this system of justice is actually achieving justice for all Americans? If not then how can we improve it?" is a good thing.

[unfilteredJW]

I really could not give one shit less what your country does. I cannot even articulate how much I don't care what Canada does on this front. In the United States, the nation that you so very much want to subvert for some reason that you don't quite articulate, a jury trial is a clearly defined constitutional right. American vassal states can make different choices, I don't really care.

I didn't, you're lying. Again. I stated plainly that all systems have flaws.

What you're referring to as a "small mob" is a core principle of the justice system of my country. That you desire to subvert that says a lot about you and nothing about it's legitimacy. You're a subversive liar and I'm never going to treat you as though you're acting with even the slightest bit of good faith.

Fucking hilarious.

- - - Updated - - -

Mere discussion of issues can only possibly be counted as subversion in an authoritarian state. Plus, "America's vassal state"? I really wouldn't throw stones from your glass houses about "mask off" moments after saying stuff like that.

They went full Murica fucking fast.

[Gorsameth]

I sure prefer it to the alternatives. I can't say I expected that we'd shuffle the deck on what's racist today and come up with "juries need to go, they're bigoted".

The alternative being that your fate is decided by a professional who has studied and trained for the job for years, who knows how to critically examine evidence and see through bullshit?

I know if I'm innocent I prefer the professional over some random people pulled off the street every day of the week.

I find the notion that a 'jury of your peer' is more qualified then a Judge to be as silly as suggesting you pull your own teeth with a piece of string and a door.
Just because America does it doesn't make it good. America does a lot of very stupid shit.