2020 US Presidential Election Discussion (primary & general)

[Johnny Dy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

That should be written on all their buildings, in graffiti. And the ink should never get dry.
(meaning, someone should always be ready with can in hand to renew it, if necessary.)

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Key Board

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/s...996393987?s=20

Wow, that thread attracted a bunch of crazies.

[ganbaru]

The Political Depravity of Unjust Pardons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMiOMNIRs3k

As much as Trump's pardons are bad (not to use stronger words), I do remember than some of Bill Clinton's lasts pardon and the one than Nixon got did undermine the morality of thoses before.

[Anh_Minh]

Well, same source as my last post:
"The main benefit of controlling a modern bureaucratic state is not the power to persecute the innocent. It is the power to protect the guilty."

[Johnny Dy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

persecute the innocent.

The problem with these 2 is that they aren't mutually exclusive, on the contrary, they are well intertwined.
When one comes into play, the other is not far behind. Because someone must pay, and it's usually not the guilty, but the stupid.

Spoiler:

In that regard, the epic scene of Les Miserables, Liam Neeson version from '98 comes to mind, in the trial of Jean Valjean, who wasn't Jean Valjean.
One of my all time favorites, as simple as it is, the more real and gut wrenching. I meant to show you the scene from youtube, but it's not there anymore.
It's basically about Valjean who witnesses the trial of a poor homeless idiot who's been accused in his place, as many years passed and someone needed to be found guilty to put the public's mind at ease. And the trial isn't a trial, it's just a mockery by "the intelligent" high dignitaries against someone that can barely speak or form any sort of coherent thought. Unbearable cruelty, to say the least.

Couldn't find the scene, just half of it, which bypasses the best part, but I found it's script:

Prosecutor: Gentlemen, will you be so kind as to remain seated... while m'lords, the judges, reexamine the prisoner's records.
Judge: Prisoner to remain standing at the bar.(...) Continue the examination.
Prosecutor: You pretend to be simple. So I give you a simple question to answer. Are you or are you not the convict Jean Valjean?
*few seconds of pause*
Prosecutor: In the first place...
Homeless guy: What was the first place?
*gentlemen laughing*
Prosecutor: Answer the question!
Homeless guy: You're wicked! That's what I was going to say. Only... I forgot your name.
*gentlemen laughing*
Homeless guy: I'm a man who... Oh, what's the word for it? I'm one of those... who doesn't eat every day. I'm... I'm hungry! That's the word.
*gentlemen laughing*
Prosecutor: You've already been found guilty of poaching.
Judge: Answer the prosecutor's question.
Homeless guy: Did he ask a question?
*gentlemen laughing*
Prosecutor: Are you or are you not Jean Valjean?
Homeless guy: Your say I was born in Faverolles. That's very clever, telling me where I come from. That's more than I know. My... My parents were tramps.
*gentlemen laughing*
Prosecutor: In view of the shrewdly contrived denials... of the accused, who is trying to pass himself off as an idiot... I call the witness Brevet to the stand.
Judge: So ordered.

And then after Brevet all but buries the poor bastard with unshakable lying testimony, the true Valjean can't take the cruel charade anymore and we got this, luckily still on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3qYsvjZ0fs&t=5s Although the 1st part for me was the best part of the movie, evidently taken out because of retards infringement/copyright bullshit nobody gives a damn about, not even those who made the movie almost a quarter of a century ago. All they do is prevent us from seeing the good part and take mind form it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

protect the guilty.

[Eisdrache]

Surely you have actual, real life statistics for this claim of yours?

[Johnny Dy]

The stupid instead of the guilty is a stretch, but it does happen when people need an escape goat, almost all the time. Luckily it doesn't happen all that often people to need an escape goat. But the back and forth between protecting the guilty means condemning the innocent and/or condemning the innocent means protecting the guilty is nothing but logic. When one unfolds, the other happens almost by natural determinism. And that happens all the time.

There is no "surely" in giving such statistics as there is no "surely" in documenting how many times 2+2 added to 4 in recent history or how many times rivers flow down stream. Maybe if you ask someone who's really bored with living his life and instead try to spend weeks to collect such information for you, then you will get your statistic. I am definitely not that man. For me simple logic suffices. ^^'



LE: You probably think about unsolved cases. Well, yes, but only in forgivable matters.
In all the matters that truly matter, matters that are unforgivable, someone must be found guilty. And that is dangerous.
As an example of that, now that you've reminded me, I have this from 2012 The Central Park Five - A documentary that examines the 1989 case of five black and Latino teenagers who were convicted of raping a white woman in Central Park. After having spent between 6 and 13 years each in prison, a serial rapist confessed to the crime.

And this is what Trump, since we're on topic, thinks about the whole affair: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7351231.html How the fuck I ask you, can such a man be elected to run anything of importance? Mind numbing...

Retarded people like Trump aside, quoting from The Independent up above, my case is this: The boys first confessed to the crime after lengthy interrogations by detectives, but later recanted their statements, citing intimidation and coercion from police. In 2002, convicted rapist and murderer Matias Reyes confessed to the crime. Investigators later tied Reyes’ DNA to the attack. If you'd watch the documentary, you'd understand why they confessed... mostly by being psychologically brutalized by the police and prosecutors, completely obliterating not only their human rights but also their children rights. Because why? Because it was a case that truly mattered, because it was unforgivable and people started cutting corners with the law. And if the guy who did it didn't step forward, they would still be in prison to this day. The ones that would still survive it that is, as one of those wrongfully imprisoned children committed suicide a few years later after his release. No doubt because of the charming treatment he got in that american prison and the hard to imagine regret a child can have for losing many years to such treatment, while being innocent.

"Better let 10 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent". That is a creed retarded trumpists will never understand.
In the case above, we got it in reverse, we got 5 innocent imprisoned for one guilty.
And the relevance, because someone was convicted, the guilty could keep on being free, case in point.

Such a case makes you wonder, how many such cases actually exist? How often does a guilty man grow a conscience to confess? 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 cases? And then you got your statistic that's not written anywhere. In this particular case, if you ask me, he didn't even grow a conscience. The serial rapist just become impotent and couldn't rape anyone anymore so why not at least get some highlights, make his career public and take credit for what he did? That would make it 0 in 100 and 0 in 1000 cases. The 5 central park dudes simply had a little chance in their sea of shit.

[Jaden]

Political pressure tends to be on the side of pragmatism (Law and order, rah rah!)

Only a minority will stand by principles such as:

"Better let 10 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent".

Some good defense attorneys, who have a difficult and thankless job, luckily do. There's just not enough of them for all the accused.

Well, if you have a peaceful society, where crime is not on top the issues hierarchy, then you can even get the public to go along with high-minded ideals.

That's probably not how the people of New York felt in 1989, where violent crime was near its all-time peak...

[Magin]

It's interesting you bring up 1989 and the high crime rate... which I understand is part of what made Giuliani so popular back then! AKA, he managed to reduce it and drive out the mob, from my understanding. Anyways, something was recently pointed out to me: a high possibility of why there was so much crime back then... is because so many houses contained lead! I don't have the links, but it's my understanding that growing up in households with high lead content affected the brain development of children, and may have been one of the reasons why crime was so high in the Big Cities back then. At the very least, I know there was a huge push to remove lead from housing during the 2000's, and the crime rate did drop.

[Jaden]

Yea, 1989 was just because the case cited by Johnny Dy in the above post was from that year.

Chronic lead exposure making people go mental is a pretty well established truth, just difficult to establish cause and effect with a population-wide issue. It's even theorized that the madmen in the upper class of ancient Rome were that way due to the lead plumbing in their houses.

Getting way too sidetracked. Stay tuned for 2021, which I will start off by calling the senate race. My precitions have been shite this year, may they go better in the next!

[The Green One]

Well 2020 was garbage, but hey at least that should be an easy bar to clear right?

[Anh_Minh]

I wish people would stop taunting 2021.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I wish people would stop taunting 2021.

To be fair, COVID19 is still around, with the incoming fallout from the lockdowns and such. And Trump is sabotaging everything he can.

[Akito Kinomoto]

how is this thread still going on when the election is over

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

how is this thread still going on when the election is over

"How dare you!"

-Probably Trump and Friends

[Ithekro]

Six days until its "final"

Twenty until Inauguration Day.

Than its "over".

Finally.

[The Green One]

Trump apparently refuses to give up until the bitter end. So until Biden is in his rightfully won chair then this thread will apparently continue on.

[Magin]

January 20th at 12 pm EST is when this thread can technically officially close.

That said, some of the things I've seen floating as theories:

During the inauguration, Trump will be doing his own broadcasting (probably via Fox or a place such as OAN).

Once the clock strikes noon on the 20th, Trump will put into custody via Secret Service.

I have no idea what's the most likely to happen, but these are some of the ideas I've seen floating around.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Magin

Once the clock strikes noon on the 20th, Trump will put into custody via Secret Service.

Any leaving president since Eisenhower and their spouses receive lifelong protection by the Secret Service under the Former Presidents Act as well as a pension and medical insurance.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Any leaving president since Eisenhower and their spouses receive lifelong protection by the Secret Service under the Former Presidents Act as well as a pension and medical insurance.

Shhh, don't rain on the conspiracy parade.

What will happen is that the State of NY will hit Trump with a major criminal indictment and move to seize as much of his assets as possible soon after Jan. 20th. And of course a staggering number of civil lawsuits will be filed against him. A pardon won't protect him against any of those things but he may still resign a day early to have Pence grant him one, as insulation against any federal indictments.