Sorry chief, you’ve misunderstood my argument. I’m not going to repeat myself ad nauseam so you’re welcome to keep thinking that I’m a Trumptard and that I (along with every judge in the US) am mistaken about the role of courts in democracy and more specifically in elections.
suspicious in its dishonestly
What is suspicious or dishonest about my argument? What are your suspicions?
You’re correct that the voting public wants all those laws, but just doesn’t want them to apply to Trump.
The point of my illustration layout out the manner in which the voting public controls the courts, is merely to show that the court must be subservient to the will of the voting public.
Not hearing the cases against Trump is problematic, but it’s less so than a situation where cases against candidates are allowed to undermine elections.
Can you help me understand why you think people want genocide?
People may be ambivalent, yes… but you seem to believe people actually support genocide.
Sorry, that’s quite simply untrue. There is no law that says you must finalise a case against a candidate during the campaign.
The purpose of traffic wardens is to direct traffic. The purpose of teachers is to educate children. The purpose of courts does not include influencing elections.
Anyone would agree that courts deferring rulings is not ideal, but it’s better than a situation where courts are influencing elections.
Do you have any other explanation as to why every judge in every court hearing a case against Trump has expressed reluctance to take any action that might undermine the election?
Do you want to live in a country where courts incarcerate the candidates they don’t like? I’m sure that will work out very well.
Ad hominem, the hallmark of lazy thinkers with nothing to say.
Just because you don’t like what I’m saying doesn’t make it wrong.
If you mean I influence the traffic outside my house by not standing in the middle of the road, then sure the courts are influencing the election.
You realise you’re discouraging everyone else from voting for Harris though right?
This is supposition but…
I imagine that disabling V2 is as simple as setting a flag during compile, at present. Obviously as the rest of the code base progresses it will become less simple to enable V2 support.
From a marketing perspective, the smart play is to say that you’ll continue supporting uBlock Origin and keep saying that for at least the next month or so, in order to gather up some refugees from chrome. Thereafter tell every one that your built in blocker is better than uBlock Origin anyway, and then drop support for V2.
I’m struggling to understand what you’re saying.
Yes the electoral college is shit. That’s not a reason to allow courts to manipulate elections.
I agree that the public doesn’t have adequate skills, experience, or knowledge to determine whether someone should be held accountable.
I also agree that Trump has undoubtedly committed multiple crimes and deserves to be penalised, probably by being incarcerated.
The problem is that the electoral college is likely to have sufficient votes to elect him regardless.
The core problem is that courts shouldn’t influence elections. It seems like a great idea now because the “baddies” will be on the pointy end of that stick, but undoubtedly it would be turned against us later on.
The problem, of which I’m sure you’re aware, is that courts in the US tend to be partisan, so guilt will be determined according to the ideology of the accused.
It might feel great when Trump is on the pointy end, but how would you feel if a corrupt court was hearing a case against Harris? I’m quite sure you would feel as though the court shouldn’t hear a case that can influence an election.
Trump is likely to win this election. That’s not what I want, and certainly isn’t what Gazans want. What are you doing to avoid that outcome?
Loads of people use Google workspace and most email clients have this feature, or if they don’t most people in customer service would just keep a document they can copy & paste from.
Regardless, if an LLM helps you with these tasks then that’s great.
I acknowledge that the electoral college misrepresents the popular vote, but that is the mechanism by which the will of your voting public is polled.
That’s not really relevant to my point, which is simply that in a healthy democracy courts need to avoid influencing elections.
Yeah but also nah.
Airing dirty laundry in discovery is tantamount to an unfavourable ruling - its still the courts undermining a democratic process.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot - a republican judge digging away for dirt on Kamala during “discovery”.
You would feel that unfair, and that’s exactly how republicans world feel about Trump going through some kind of discovery process now.
Of course there’s “a law for that” - it’s the basic paradigm of democracy.
You feel that it’s unjust, but half the country apparently disagrees with you.
I absolutely understand the feeling - he deserves to be locked up and to become irrelevant, and it would seem to be a convenient escape from this nightmare.
The uncomfortable truth though, is that if a court does anything to diminish Trump, he will become a martyr.
The voting public needs to decide they want him held accountable.
Not really.
Are you suggesting that a guilty verdict wouldn’t effect the result of the election?
Because people are the product, and these anti-features improve the extortability of that product.