Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


US Local politics and policy thread.

 
Why would we vote for a single-payer system?

1. It's been proven to work and work well.
2. Most Americans want a single-payer healthcare system.

I think the logic trying to be presented in this hypothetical strategy (which I agree is not a good one,) is that even with all the reforms and having it work as well as it can, a capitalism model of health care is inherently broken beyond repair.

Which is true, but the strategy idea still is stupid.

Well

1. That's actually not them ruling that Trump did incite violence, they're just allowing the case to proceed, which it may still fail.

2. Given the political climate you can find at least one judge who might be out with a vendetta

3. Trump can easily deflect this by claiming he was referring to his secret service agents to stop a potential threat on a guy who was actually rushing the stage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
Well

1. That's actually not them ruling that Trump did incite violence, they're just allowing the case to proceed, which it may still fail.
Good point. I'll edit that into the link.

Quote:
2. Given the political climate you can find at least one judge who might be out with a vendetta
Gee golly, I wonder why a judge might be biased against Donald Trump? What cause could any justice have to hold a grudge against Donald Trump? Do you suppose this BIASED JUDGE should be removed? After all, it's easy to show that a judge might have cause to be terribly unfair against Donald Trump. All he would have to do is launch a tweet, offend them, and boom, there's a conflict of interest. The judge is now biased.

Quote:
3. Trump can easily deflect this by claiming he was referring to his secret service agents to stop a potential threat on a guy who was actually rushing the stage.
Saying that Trump can invoke plausible deniability is not the same thing as saying he did not do it. I suppose we shall see whether the justice system thinks that remarks made on a microphone at a rally can be considered directed at the rally or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Gee golly, I wonder why a judge might be biased against Donald Trump? What cause could any justice have to hold a grudge against Donald Trump? Do you suppose this BIASED JUDGE should be removed? After all, it's easy to show that a judge might have cause to be terribly unfair against Donald Trump. All he would have to do is launch a tweet, offend them, and boom, there's a conflict of interest. The judge is now biased.
This doesn't really refute my point, in fact it emboldens it, that a generally unlikeable person may have a biased judge willing to throw away their career to make a statement, but it does not in fact prove what they are saying.

A federal judge also ruled that Obama's immigrant act was unconstitutional, and that his rulings to force doctors to perform certain surgeries is unconstitutional but, again it's one man's opinion. Because one judge does not determine what happens to all of America. You simply contest or ignore their ruling.



Quote:
Saying that Trump can invoke plausible deniability is not the same thing as saying he did not do it. I suppose we shall see whether the justice system thinks that remarks made on a microphone at a rally can be considered directed at the rally or not.
Trump doing it or not doesn't really matter when we're taking case law of what can be proved. But you'd have to be a mind reader to be able to imply you knew whether he was speaking to his secret service members or to members in the audience.

And even if he was speaking to members within the audience, because the guy was doing something that could get him kicked out, it would actually be fine to encourage violence against him. If someone runs up to you and tries to knock you off your podium you are actually allowed to uh, well fight back, or get others to do it for you, hence the secret service's actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
This doesn't really refute my point, in fact it emboldens it, that a generally unlikeable person may have a biased judge willing to throw away their career to make a statement, but it does not in fact prove what they are saying.
How likely do you think that the judges who rule against Trump do so out of personal animosity rather than, say, doing their job?

Quote:
Trump doing it or not doesn't really matter when we're taking case law of what can be proved. But you'd have to be a mind reader to be able to imply you knew whether he was speaking to his secret service members or to members in the audience.
WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS TROUBLESOME PRIEST? MAYBE THOSE SECOND AMENDMENT TYPES, YOU KNOW, COUD DO.SOMETHNG ABOUT IT?

Quote:
And even if he was speaking to members within the audience, because the guy was doing something that could get him kicked out, it would actually be fine to encourage violence against him. If someone runs up to you and tries to knock you off your podium you are actually allowed to uh, well fight back, or get others to do it for you, hence the secret service's actions.
What were the protesters doing?




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-11-18 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status