fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @lemmy.federate.cc

Posts

7

Comments

843

Joined

1 yr. ago

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?

Sorry I'm struggling to understand your meaning.

The public electing representatives who make these rules is one thing. Courts undermining elections arbitrarily is entirely another.

The public needs to decide whether they want Trump to be held accountable for his crimes.

Hmm, needs more pouty.

That's a patently absurd statement. Who wants genocide for the sake of genocide? You're being dramatic.

Not really, as you said it's just not within the realm of possibility for anyone else.

Trump stands a good chance of being elected in a few weeks. An unfavourable court ruling would undermine that. Do you want to live in a country where courts are more powerful than the will of the people?

Also, imagine what would happen if he did get locked up now. It would be pandemonium, and not without reason.

The only way to get rid of Trump is to vote against him, then watch him fade into irrelevance.

No, I define attacking Biden and Harris over their support for Israel as helping Trump get elected.

You keep asking about my excuse after the election. To be frank, I just don't care very much about the situation in Gaza. It's sad, but it's out of my control, as is every other conflict presently taking place.

The mods get really defensive about the bot.

I felt the same for a long time, but as much as I hate to admit it, it does kind of make sense in an abhorrent kind of way.

The hierarchy in a democracy is supposed to go...

Voting Public ➡️ Representatives ➡️ Laws ➡️ Courts ➡️ Rulings

That being the case, a Court shouldn't really hear cases that might undermine the will of the Voting Public.

If courts are empowered by the Voting Public, then a Court should not be in a position to make a Ruling the Voting Public does not want, despite that Ruling being correct in the context of the Law.

Another way of saying the same thing, is that if the Voting Public want's Trump to have a fair trial they would obviously not elect him as President.

I'm at a loss as to how you could surmise that I don't care about who gets elected? Everything I've been saying is about who gets elected.

You can get as upset as you like about genocide any time, now or later, but maybe in the interim you can help avoid some suffering by not helping Trump get elected.

A few months back my GP asked if they could use a transcription thing they were trialling during my consult.

He seemed shocked when I declined.

I just don't understand why anyone would actually want that?

I want my doctor to listen to what I tell him, and I don't really want what I say to be used for any other purpose, because no other purpose would be to my benefit.

Next week they'll be adding to share "basic characteristics" about me with third party "wellness partners".

I understand your stated idealist position, "I won't vote for someone engaged in genocide".

... but the reality is that Trump win, which is likely without every possible Dem vote, will cause the worst possible genocide.

So by withholding your vote you're not complicit in Harris-supported genocide, but you're complicit in Trump supported genocide, which everyone understands to be worse.

As I often say in these threads, withholding your vote is precisely what the republicans want you to do.

Seriously, will your ideals be much comfort when Trump supported Netanyahu is grinding Gaza to dost?

Ok, that's precisely why "unconditional" is reductive. It reduces a spectrum of possibilities to a binary "conditional" vs "unconditional" and produces a "both sides are the same" argument.

it doesn’t mean that griping about it makes me a trumper.

Except, it really does though? Complaining about Harris is precisely what the republicans, trumpers, and Netanyahu want you to be doing.

You might not like Trump, but you absolutely are (apparently unwittingly) carrying a lot of water for him.

Sure, but you have to acknowledge that of Harris and Trump, one of them would be more unconditional and enthusiastic than the other right?

Does anyone actually have jobs writing emails like that all day though?

Ticket systems often have an auto-response like "did you turn it off and on again".

Most email clients or even gmail have canned response plugins.

IDK. This probably is a great use case and someone doing this might be quicker and better than me using canned responses or whatever... but only incrementally, not by an order of magnitude.

I don't really know what you mean by "media pundits". Some forms of journalism are biased and opaque, others are less so. You can't just make a sweeping generalisation and say that someone listening to commentary from a variety of reputable balanced sources has been misled because "media pundits".

Your on-the-ground insights are obviously something I don't have, being that I'm in Australia, but they are of course anecdotal. There's a lot of polling and research that doesn't really support your perspective.

If you want to believe your direct insights rather than the accepted science, then I don't really have much to say to you - that's how people end up believing in a flat earth.

That doesn't make any sense.

How can you evaluate how well the voting public is resounding to Harris by listening to Harris talk?

If only there were some way you could kind of collate the thoughts of voters and try to predict which way they were going to vote. Like a statistical analysis of voters opinions. You could call it an election survey. You could do it every week or so to get a trend showing the comparative effectiveness of each party's strategies.

I mostly listen to the British and Australian public broadcasters. Both have journalists in the US. No media is completely free of bias but these are pretty good imo.

Regardless, I challenge you to find a commentator who's saying Harris is on fire.