What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
v9 said:
Countdown said:
I think a person is an addict if they would struggle to give something up, and get grumpy if they're forced to. Just because you "only do it in moderation or rarely" doesn't mean you're not addicted.
With the greatest respect, I don’t think you quite understand what the term means in a clinical context. If you forced me to give up sleeping I’d be more than a little grumpy, but I’m not addicted to sleep. bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
djc206 said:
bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
bodhi said:
They'd be more than ok with the judge presiding over the case donating to the head of the banana republic and their daughter being a major fundraiser for them however.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
I like your posts, bods, but IMO you're way off with this. It was not an 'admin error', nothing of the sort. Nobody is 'trying to imprison' the orange one, in fact, that is very unlikely to happen. So what if the judge's daughter fundraises? She's not the judge. How could any judges serve on any cases? There would be constant conflicts. Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
The system worked well in this case. Both sides chose the twelve jurors, who took the job seriously, asked for relevant parts of the evidence to be read to them again, and they unanimously agreed on 34 counts.
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
bodhi said:
djc206 said:
bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
Just because Trump's supporters have said it over and over and over again, doesn't make it true. if it was THAT easy to manipulate the US Justice system do you not think Trump himself would have tried to manipulate it? i mean when he asked the Ukrainian president for evidence against Biden, or when he asked the Georgia SoS for "11,000 more votes"....?
paulguitar said:
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
Not only that, he said his Lawyers warned him that if he testified he'd be done for perjury. Let's just work that through; his OWN lawyers are telling him he's too much of a born liar to testify in his own defence.Bugger me sideways with a small aubergine - his OWN Lawyers are calling him an inveterate liar who can't control himself, are they also part of the Deep State conspiracy?
21st Century Man said:
otolith said:
21st Century Man said:
I reckon all these things should be lumped together at the same age. Sex, marriage, voting, driving, drinking, smoking etc. It seems daft that there can be a range from say 14 to 21 for different things that in terms of maturity, responsibility, self determination etc aren't too different.
Different consequences, to themselves and others, and differently enforceable, though. Apparently it's legal to be married as young as 12 with parental consent
https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/12-year-olds-...
https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/12-year-olds-...
paulguitar said:
I like your posts, bods, but IMO you're way off with this. It was not an 'admin error', nothing of the sort. Nobody is 'trying to imprison' the orange one, in fact, that is very unlikely to happen. So what if the judge's daughter fundraises? She's not the judge. How could any judges serve on any cases? There would be constant conflicts.
The system worked well in this case. Both sides chose the twelve jurors, who took the job seriously, asked for relevant parts of the evidence to be read to them again, and they unanimously agreed on 34 counts.
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent. The system worked well in this case. Both sides chose the twelve jurors, who took the job seriously, asked for relevant parts of the evidence to be read to them again, and they unanimously agreed on 34 counts.
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
bodhi said:
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
Which politician(s) brought the case that's just concluded?For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
bodhi said:
paulguitar said:
I like your posts, bods, but IMO you're way off with this. It was not an 'admin error', nothing of the sort. Nobody is 'trying to imprison' the orange one, in fact, that is very unlikely to happen. So what if the judge's daughter fundraises? She's not the judge. How could any judges serve on any cases? There would be constant conflicts.
The system worked well in this case. Both sides chose the twelve jurors, who took the job seriously, asked for relevant parts of the evidence to be read to them again, and they unanimously agreed on 34 counts.
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent. The system worked well in this case. Both sides chose the twelve jurors, who took the job seriously, asked for relevant parts of the evidence to be read to them again, and they unanimously agreed on 34 counts.
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
CountyAFC said:
bodhi said:
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
Which politician(s) brought the case that's just concluded?For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
Trump was not prosecuted because he is running. He is running because he was prosecuted and he thought that it would help him get off.
So far, he thought wrong.
bodhi said:
djc206 said:
bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
As others have pointed out Trump is only seeking office to try and escape being held to account for his lifetime of grifting and other crimes. Hes not being punished because he’s a candidate he’s a candidate to avoid punishment.
Strangely Brown said:
CountyAFC said:
bodhi said:
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
Which politician(s) brought the case that's just concluded?For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
CountyAFC said:
Strangely Brown said:
CountyAFC said:
bodhi said:
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
Which politician(s) brought the case that's just concluded?For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
However political prosecutions do make me deeply uncomfortable for reasons stated, and I'm struggling to see how they help an already massively divided country. Guess we just have to wait to see how the appeal goes.
bodhi said:
CountyAFC said:
Strangely Brown said:
CountyAFC said:
bodhi said:
My original point was a more general one, albeit triggered by the case you mention - whenever politicians of any colour or ideology start using the courts against their opponents I start to get very uncomfortable given how these things have gone in the past - and in the case of the US, sets a very unfortunate precedent.
For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
Which politician(s) brought the case that's just concluded?For instance in this case if the Orange one gets in again - which looks entirely possible looking at the polls - what do we think the first thing he'll do is?
Seems to me a genie that didn't need to be let out of the bottle. Just beat him at the ballot box again, and leave the lawyers alone.
However political prosecutions do make me deeply uncomfortable for reasons stated, and I'm struggling to see how they help an already massively divided country. Guess we just have to wait to see how the appeal goes.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff