Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
The system of change of venue is not based on race, color or nationality but situation. I used the black argument as a EXAMPLE. The system must be used when the location where the case is handled is perceived as being partial to one of the parties. The system was created to try and make the procedure as fair as possible to both parties.
It would also be incredible incorrect.
Read the full quote and the actual linked website. The actual canon is: '' An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.'' That's why I said that I judge should be assumed to be impartial, i.e: don't have anything in his history going in favor or against any of the assumed parties in the process. In this way none of the revelant parties could complain, since it is assumed that the judge is not partial and can act as a fair actor.
That's why I used the example of the Judge being a Trump supporter to show that it can biased to every side. It's also one of the reasons why in some countries most judges are prohibited to join political parties or even post public opinions online.
No. The judge don't need to act with impartiality. This is actually required by law in any civilized country, including US and France (the link is from US). Every trial must start on equal ground to both parties (as equal as possible in most cases),
Page 7. Specific conflicts, d:
''The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation, prosecution, or other matter where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor’s neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised. ''
There's no fallacious rhetoric. I even linked the relevant laws and statutes and explained the reasoning. The judge will not suffer anything by excusing himself from a case and will keep his reputation intact and even it can improve. The failure to do so tainted the case and gave arguments for the defense to claim unfairness to a point that now half of the US population (or even more) consider this judge corrupt. This is not ok in a case. People can complain about the law and other things, but the trial itself must be as clean as possible.
Because they are human beings the judicial system has rules to avoid the failures of human personalities and prejudices. The system exist to be used.
If you already have a formed opinion about someone you would not be fit to be in a jury. One of the basic principles of a trial is that someone is innocent until proven guilt.
Except that this case creates a thing called PRECEDENT that could be applied to other people that don't have millions to burn in lawyers. There's a reason why the statue of justice wears a blindfold and why everyone are counted as equal before the law. Using of the justice system as a tool to prosecute your political enemies is frowned upon by any reasonable person.
Although I'm not surprised, still makes me disgusted with you. This is not ok and is actually a human rights violation. Advocating for human rights violations is not ok in any way, shape or form.
And that is enough of the forum for today. As usual the extremist is always the one that wants to violate human rights.
It would also be incredible incorrect.
Read the full quote and the actual linked website. The actual canon is: '' An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.'' That's why I said that I judge should be assumed to be impartial, i.e: don't have anything in his history going in favor or against any of the assumed parties in the process. In this way none of the revelant parties could complain, since it is assumed that the judge is not partial and can act as a fair actor.
That's why I used the example of the Judge being a Trump supporter to show that it can biased to every side. It's also one of the reasons why in some countries most judges are prohibited to join political parties or even post public opinions online.
No. The judge don't need to act with impartiality. This is actually required by law in any civilized country, including US and France (the link is from US). Every trial must start on equal ground to both parties (as equal as possible in most cases),
Page 7. Specific conflicts, d:
''The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation, prosecution, or other matter where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor’s neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised. ''
There's no fallacious rhetoric. I even linked the relevant laws and statutes and explained the reasoning. The judge will not suffer anything by excusing himself from a case and will keep his reputation intact and even it can improve. The failure to do so tainted the case and gave arguments for the defense to claim unfairness to a point that now half of the US population (or even more) consider this judge corrupt. This is not ok in a case. People can complain about the law and other things, but the trial itself must be as clean as possible.
Because they are human beings the judicial system has rules to avoid the failures of human personalities and prejudices. The system exist to be used.
If you already have a formed opinion about someone you would not be fit to be in a jury. One of the basic principles of a trial is that someone is innocent until proven guilt.
Except that this case creates a thing called PRECEDENT that could be applied to other people that don't have millions to burn in lawyers. There's a reason why the statue of justice wears a blindfold and why everyone are counted as equal before the law. Using of the justice system as a tool to prosecute your political enemies is frowned upon by any reasonable person.
Although I'm not surprised, still makes me disgusted with you. This is not ok and is actually a human rights violation. Advocating for human rights violations is not ok in any way, shape or form.
And that is enough of the forum for today. As usual the extremist is always the one that wants to violate human rights.
Yes, and its not the case here.
Debatable.
We are not in a normal context. This specific party will ALWAYS find a way to complain. And again, in praticity its simply complicated. Judge are used to donate to political party, finding someone with no ties is difficult.
Yes, but we are talking about a far right president here. Its simply IMPOSSIBLE to find a judge that will not be involved politically personnaly in the matter.
And like I said, this is NOT a normal case, the judge WILL have personnal partiality concerning Trump, its inevitable. Simply because we are talking about a freaking far right and former president. So what we must look at is for those who are the LEAST partial and those who can do the job the best. And I don't see why it can't be the case here.
Then there might indeed be a problem here. THe question is why it was accepted (and don't tell me that's its a political conspiracy)
Like I said, in this case, its near impossible. The subject is too political. People will be partial, its inevitable. And I really can't consider corrupt someone that just give a few bucks to progressive movements.
Its not serious.
Contrary to you guys, when I'm wrong on something, I come back on it. I'm not a Law specialist so here I'm asking questions, but SOME of the answers are simply not sufficent and do not take into account the political context of this trial.
This trial is not the one of the average man, but the one of someone who holds an immense power of potential destruction.
Indeed. And nothing seems to be breaking the system here.
And you don't understand the difference between a judgement of justice and the judgement of humans.
We are not judge and we are not bound to justice which is here to deliver a judgement and a sentence if necessary.
I have a power that justice doesn't have : Trust. This give me the power to make my OWN judgment on someone and act accordingly.
I will give you the same example as Herrara:
You have 3 friends : John and Annie and Helena.
One day when you have fun with Helena, Annie comes to your house one day crying with bruise all over her face to say "John raped me" and she ask you to bring her and accompagny her to the Police station. Helena starts crying and says "John raped me too"
What do you do ? Do you wait for justice to deliver a judgment before getting John the F. out of your friend circle, or do you make your own choice and choose to help your friend denounce him to the POlice and choose not to talk to him ever again ?
Well, I'm choosing to believe the victim and the evidences I have. Same case with Trump, we have enough evidences to make our own judgment, this guy is a dangerous far right pig and he deserves to go to Jail.
Now, can this prevent me from giving him a fair trial ? No. Like I said, Justice must prevail. But we have to understood that justice can't be blind because if that's the case, context will not be taken into account and justice will not have been made.
Which is one of the core problem of the system.
EVERYONE IS NOT EQUAL IN FRONT OF THE LAW
A blindfolded justice is UNJUST by ESSENCE. It doesn't take the sociological context of the infractions and the person into account and therefore creates UNJUST judgments.
That liberal mindset must be stopped. You CAN'T treat a person that is president and hold a IMMENSE power of destruction and canavoid the law more than the common man the same way as any other. Simply because they don't have the same power, the same context and the same reason to do what they do. Its simply UNJUST and a sociological ABERATION.
A blind justice is like a blind doctor.
And right now, the system is not taking the sociological context of people into account, so the system must be reworked.
No, that's actually the opposite. And no one is explaining that we should violate human's rights. What is a problem on the other hand is defending a system that does question the fact that it is putting more black people in Jail than other people.
That kind of system is problematic.
You are disgusted by what I say ? Poor you. The one who are really a danger for humans rights are the ones like you who defend a unjust system and can't understand that power creates a impermability to the law and justice.
So I do understand why you are crying when people who actually do care about doing something JUST are using the system against itself.
Debatable.
We are not in a normal context. This specific party will ALWAYS find a way to complain. And again, in praticity its simply complicated. Judge are used to donate to political party, finding someone with no ties is difficult.
Yes, but we are talking about a far right president here. Its simply IMPOSSIBLE to find a judge that will not be involved politically personnaly in the matter.
And like I said, this is NOT a normal case, the judge WILL have personnal partiality concerning Trump, its inevitable. Simply because we are talking about a freaking far right and former president. So what we must look at is for those who are the LEAST partial and those who can do the job the best. And I don't see why it can't be the case here.
Then there might indeed be a problem here. THe question is why it was accepted (and don't tell me that's its a political conspiracy)
Like I said, in this case, its near impossible. The subject is too political. People will be partial, its inevitable. And I really can't consider corrupt someone that just give a few bucks to progressive movements.
Its not serious.
Contrary to you guys, when I'm wrong on something, I come back on it. I'm not a Law specialist so here I'm asking questions, but SOME of the answers are simply not sufficent and do not take into account the political context of this trial.
This trial is not the one of the average man, but the one of someone who holds an immense power of potential destruction.
Indeed. And nothing seems to be breaking the system here.
And you don't understand the difference between a judgement of justice and the judgement of humans.
We are not judge and we are not bound to justice which is here to deliver a judgement and a sentence if necessary.
I have a power that justice doesn't have : Trust. This give me the power to make my OWN judgment on someone and act accordingly.
I will give you the same example as Herrara:
You have 3 friends : John and Annie and Helena.
One day when you have fun with Helena, Annie comes to your house one day crying with bruise all over her face to say "John raped me" and she ask you to bring her and accompagny her to the Police station. Helena starts crying and says "John raped me too"
What do you do ? Do you wait for justice to deliver a judgment before getting John the F. out of your friend circle, or do you make your own choice and choose to help your friend denounce him to the POlice and choose not to talk to him ever again ?
Well, I'm choosing to believe the victim and the evidences I have. Same case with Trump, we have enough evidences to make our own judgment, this guy is a dangerous far right pig and he deserves to go to Jail.
Now, can this prevent me from giving him a fair trial ? No. Like I said, Justice must prevail. But we have to understood that justice can't be blind because if that's the case, context will not be taken into account and justice will not have been made.
Which is one of the core problem of the system.
EVERYONE IS NOT EQUAL IN FRONT OF THE LAW
A blindfolded justice is UNJUST by ESSENCE. It doesn't take the sociological context of the infractions and the person into account and therefore creates UNJUST judgments.
That liberal mindset must be stopped. You CAN'T treat a person that is president and hold a IMMENSE power of destruction and canavoid the law more than the common man the same way as any other. Simply because they don't have the same power, the same context and the same reason to do what they do. Its simply UNJUST and a sociological ABERATION.
A blind justice is like a blind doctor.
And right now, the system is not taking the sociological context of people into account, so the system must be reworked.
No, that's actually the opposite. And no one is explaining that we should violate human's rights. What is a problem on the other hand is defending a system that does question the fact that it is putting more black people in Jail than other people.
That kind of system is problematic.
You are disgusted by what I say ? Poor you. The one who are really a danger for humans rights are the ones like you who defend a unjust system and can't understand that power creates a impermability to the law and justice.
So I do understand why you are crying when people who actually do care about doing something JUST are using the system against itself.
This was yersterday :
But if you really want me to quote you a lot of post I can do that.
You guys don't realize that in this threads, I'm one of those who came back the most on their words.
You guys are focusing so much on the fact that I'm an evil leftist who targetting you for defending toxic idea and labeling you all day long that you don't realize that I'm actually the one who is the most reasonnable.
Being radical doesn't mean that I'm stupid or incapable of questionning myself.
But if you really want me to quote you a lot of post I can do that.
You guys don't realize that in this threads, I'm one of those who came back the most on their words.
You guys are focusing so much on the fact that I'm an evil leftist who targetting you for defending toxic idea and labeling you all day long that you don't realize that I'm actually the one who is the most reasonnable.
Being radical doesn't mean that I'm stupid or incapable of questionning myself.
And yet you keep clinging onto these Falsehoods, So for you to keep claiming that, just screams disingenuous. Pull the wool from your eyes.
If a former President is somehow a Person with Potential Destruction, why are you only hanging onto Trunp? Because he just doesn't align with your Worldview. Therefore he must be the Evil one... Such Clownery.
If a former President is somehow a Person with Potential Destruction, why are you only hanging onto Trunp? Because he just doesn't align with your Worldview. Therefore he must be the Evil one... Such Clownery.
Yeah, you are actually posting that you admit that you were wrong about a meaningless thing that you don't even know.
Admit you were wrong about your carrot theories.
Who are the experts on american politics? The same who claimed that Trump election was done by Russia? The same that hide and protect the people on Epstein's list?
Admit you were wrong about your carrot theories.
Post automatically merged:
Who are the experts on american politics? The same who claimed that Trump election was done by Russia? The same that hide and protect the people on Epstein's list?
I already did that multiple time. My theory was completely wrong. You are confusing the theory and the reasonning.
To give you an image, saying that my reasonning was wrong would be like saying to a scientist making a theory that the scientific process is wrong.
My theory and therefore "I" was wrong, but my reasonning, ergo the process behind the theory was correct.
To give you an image, saying that my reasonning was wrong would be like saying to a scientist making a theory that the scientific process is wrong.
My theory and therefore "I" was wrong, but my reasonning, ergo the process behind the theory was correct.
What you are writing is retarded.
Your reasoning was wrong because reality disproven your theory and the reasoning that lead to it.
Because you based your entire reason on 1. Fanfiction 2. Wishful thinking 3. Climing on mirrrors.
Just to prove how ignorant you are, making a theory is the first/second step of the scientific process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
An hypothesis (your hypothesis) got disproven at the first step. You didn't question your methodology, you still claim your methodology was perfect even if it was disproven.
Your reasoning was wrong because reality disproven your theory and the reasoning that lead to it.
Because you based your entire reason on 1. Fanfiction 2. Wishful thinking 3. Climing on mirrrors.
Just to prove how ignorant you are, making a theory is the first/second step of the scientific process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
An hypothesis (your hypothesis) got disproven at the first step. You didn't question your methodology, you still claim your methodology was perfect even if it was disproven.