Indictment case judge

[Athetotheist]

Trump's indictment case has been given to a judge who was appointed by the defendant.*

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/11813108 ... indictment

Should this judge recuse herself for her glaring conflict of interest in this case?


*As I understand it, she could be setting the trial date. Would it be before or----conveniently----after the '24 election?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #29

Let's start somewhere:
https://rollcall.com/2005/05/02/ten-bil ... -mattered/

Do you notice that all of these examples are from decades ago? Can you imagine today's Democrat party pushing hard enough to get any of these through? I can't. Preserving the Senate filibuster is more important to them.

And, yet, that's the system we have - and it's very clear that when Dems have the majority, things get done that are better for the American people.

.....with one hand----while crushing Occupy movements, shafting labor unions and supporting military assaults on defenseless populations get done with the other.

And since the Dems refused to do away with the aforementioned filibuster, they can always pin the blame on "those darn Republicans" who kill legislature with the very tool which the Dems themselves insist on letting them keep.

The Democrat party is not about doing good. It's about looking good while laughing off the wishes of its constituents.

And "that's the system we have" is the way they want us to think. They want us docile and resigned to having them run our government their way.

I'm not sure what system of government you envision is able to eradicate 45% of the country; to complete negate the will of a large segment of the country. It's not a Democracy, for sure!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #31

I'm not sure what system of government you envision is able to eradicate 45% of the country; to complete negate the will of a large segment of the country.

Then how does a presidential candidate win the popular vote and lose the election?

I'm not sure where you get the word "eradicate" from what I expressed, but negating the will of the public is easy when you have a system in which "representatives" can be swayed by private interests, and it's even easier when the public allows itself to be lulled into blithely letting it happen.

It's not a Democracy, for sure!

Now you're catchin' on.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #31

I'm not sure what system of government you envision is able to eradicate 45% of the country; to complete negate the will of a large segment of the country.

Then how does a presidential candidate win the popular vote and lose the election?

I'm not sure where you get the word "eradicate" from what I expressed, but negating the will of the public is easy when you have a system in which "representatives" can be swayed by private interests, and it's even easier when the public allows itself to be lulled into blithely letting it happen.

It's not a Democracy, for sure!

Now you're catchin' on.

You switched there. You are proposing something that isn't a Democracy, then decided that we also don't live in a Democracy. We do (in the US and most Western countries) even though the particular brands and processes are a mixed bag of ways to deliver a Democracy.

As for how the President in the US is not selected by the majority of the people - that's in the Constitution. Look into it. It's pretty cool, even if it doesn't get each individual what they want, and certainly might be time for a refresh - but it's still a pretty decent starting point, considering the history of all other governments throughout history.

Maybe you think we deserve better. Great - how about you make that happen?

I'll just warn you, it's harder to change the status quo than it is to complain about the current system, and there's always Authoritarianism threatening to blow it all up in the wings.

I wish we had more minds like you in government, fixing all the problems, pointing out all the flaws, whining about the current state of affairs and writing about it on the internet - things sure would get done!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #33

You switched there. You are proposing something that isn't a Democracy, then decided that we also don't live in a Democracy.

I didn't switch anything. I've been referring to the non-democracy we live in all along.

As for how the President in the US is not selected by the majority of the people - that's in the Constitution.

Okay, you've told me that it's constitutional.

Now tell me that it's democratic for a small, select group of electors to have the power to overturn the will of a majority of their fellow citizens.

but it's still a pretty decent starting point

237 years on from the drafting of the Constitution, and we're still at a "starting point"?

Maybe you think we deserve better. Great - how about you make that happen?

"Who will help me bake the bread"? asked the Little Red Hen.

"Not I," said the Dog.

"Not I," said the Cat.......

I'll just warn you, it's harder to change the status quo than it is to complain about the current system

Hard? It's downright impossible if we're too apathetic to try.

and there's always Authoritarianism threatening to blow it all up in the wings.

Yeah....don't want those pigs to start sleeping in beds. Best to just keep slavin' away for the Farmer.....

I wish we had more minds like you in government, fixing all the problems, pointing out all the flaws, whining about the current state of affairs and writing about it on the internet - things sure would get done!

And I wish we'd had more minds like you to guide us on a sensible path through history. We wouldn't have had to put up with all those childish upstarts and their Pie-in-the-Sky indulgences: women's sufferage, the civil rights movement......not to mention that uppity LGBTQ+ crowd with their insolent prattle about "social justice" [whatever that's supposed to mean].....yes, we'd all be so much happier and better off if everybody would just stay in the closet on their side of the tracks and let us watch the commercial until the show comes back on......

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #33

You switched there. You are proposing something that isn't a Democracy, then decided that we also don't live in a Democracy.

I didn't switch anything. I've been referring to the non-democracy we live in all along.

As for how the President in the US is not selected by the majority of the people - that's in the Constitution.

Okay, you've told me that it's constitutional.

Now tell me that it's democratic for a small, select group of electors to have the power to overturn the will of a majority of their fellow citizens.

but it's still a pretty decent starting point

237 years on from the drafting of the Constitution, and we're still at a "starting point"?

Maybe you think we deserve better. Great - how about you make that happen?

"Who will help me bake the bread"? asked the Little Red Hen.

"Not I," said the Dog.

"Not I," said the Cat.......

I'll just warn you, it's harder to change the status quo than it is to complain about the current system

Hard? It's downright impossible if we're too apathetic to try.

and there's always Authoritarianism threatening to blow it all up in the wings.

Yeah....don't want those pigs to start sleeping in beds. Best to just keep slavin' away for the Farmer.....

I wish we had more minds like you in government, fixing all the problems, pointing out all the flaws, whining about the current state of affairs and writing about it on the internet - things sure would get done!

And I wish we'd had more minds like you to guide us on a sensible path through history. We wouldn't have had to put up with all those childish upstarts and their Pie-in-the-Sky indulgences: women's sufferage, the civil rights movement......not to mention that uppity LGBTQ+ crowd with their insolent prattle about "social justice" [whatever that's supposed to mean].....yes, we'd all be so much happier and better off if everybody would just stay in the closet on their side of the tracks and let us watch the commercial until the show comes back on......

I'm quite comfortable being on the Progressive side of the fence, not sure what you think you are fighting for, besides getting people to believe in supernatural fairy tales - as if that's helping.


Just to disabuse you of your error. The USA is a constitutional democracy. It's one of the oldest at 247 years (not 237), and is showing signs of stress, but so far holding. The alternative, throughout the last 5,000 or so years, has been far less impressive. While I'm sure you have great ideas of how you'd like the world to be, it's never easy to convince others - especially if your ideas aren't great or just plain delusional - which is what I've come to expect from people who believe in gods, angels, demons, and other supernatural woo.

While I applaud Idealism when it comes to brainstorming ideas, Realism is the thing that usually works. Not works best - but actually works.
The hard fought victories over slavery, misogyny, racism, consumer protections, etc. - on the part of the Progressives - needed real-world solutions that could be communicated to the rest of the public as a demonstrable Good. Then people needed to get to work to enact laws, and work against the ground swell of Populist morons who only thought of themselves.

Women's sufferage, Civil Rights, LGBTQ+ and other social justice/human rights movements (like BLM) all took people to be "woke." Educated. Aware. It also took people to risk their lives. It also took people in positions of authority and power to see the sense in risking their political future for the cause.

Populists, anarchists, libertarians, religionists, dominionists, etc. are simply not good for anything. They think blowing up the system is reform. They think chaos is a foundation on which to build.

They ignore the chaos that had to be cleared to built the shaky foundations we have in place. They ignore the generations of pain and injustice that continue to be wolves at the door if we let up a little.

So, sure, the system isn't perfect, and greed still exists, but claiming it's not a democracy (it is) and spouting off libertarian or anarchist talking points get us nowhere.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #35

I'm quite comfortable being on the Progressive side of the fence, not sure what you think you are fighting for, besides getting people to believe in supernatural fairy tales - as if that's helping.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi ... o-Ridicule

Just to disabuse you of your error. The USA is a constitutional democracy. It's one of the oldest at 247 years (not 237)

If you go back and look at my previous post, you'll see that I was going from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

As for the USA being a constitutional democracy, you really have to learn to distinguish between theory and practice (hint: in a democracy, Citizens United wouldn't become law).

While I'm sure you have great ideas of how you'd like the world to be, it's never easy to convince others - especially if your ideas aren't great or just plain delusional - which is what I've come to expect from people who believe in gods, angels, demons, and other supernatural woo.

Atheists sometimes hold events to show the general public how friendly atheists are. I'm guessing that you don't go to any of them.

Populists, anarchists, libertarians, religionists, dominionists, etc. are simply not good for anything. They think blowing up the system is reform. They think chaos is a foundation on which to build.

What a crude and uninformed label to slap onto so many. Wanting to promote active change doesn't make you an anarchist; a lot of people simply realize that it's naive to think that a system designed to resist change can be changed from within.