Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[Curried Goats]

If you think a grand jury cannot be corrupted by a weaponized government, I still have that nice assortment of pretty bridges to sell.

Those are just empty inferences without any evidence. Do you have evidence these grand juries were corrupted?

 

[Foxfyre]

Those are just empty inferences without any evidence. Do you have evidence these grand juries were corrupted?

I'll show mine when you show your evidence that they were not.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'll show mine when you show your evidence that they were not.

That's not how this works. It's not on me to prove a negative.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll show mine when you show your evidence that they were not.

Okay, I can't help myself.

How does one prove a negative, exactly?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You state that there are hundreds of Democratic policies that are bad for our government.
Could you offer up one or two of those policies for debate here?

Also for balance maybe some one could offer up one or 2 Republican policies
Actual debate could be so much more helpful, than just 1 sided political propaganda.

That would be your job if you disagree. However, since it is so easy, I will oblige your request.

The Democrat's stance on abortion is a prime example. Biden's loan forgiveness program is another. As a Republican, i like when we follow the law. They ignore it whenever convenient.

As far Republican party, any policies that reduce freedom. Occasionally they propose things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Fortunately, cooler heads always prevail, and they never get enacted. There are no cooler heads in the Democrat Party because they believe any reduction is freedom is a good thing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Democrats are the party of PC and Identity Politics. The GQP is the "Ugly American" party -- loud, arrogant and ignorant.

You really would think there would be a TON of room between the two, but our "system" (ha) makes it all but impossible.

If that is true, why can no Democrat define what a woman is. That's pretty damned ignorant to me.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So why not work for your party too become more moderate,
while also being more conservative than many things purposed by Democrat's???

Those are called RINOs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, I'm not that hopeful. I'm not sure we have enough time.

One common misconception I like to point out: RCV is not a vehicle to get third party candidates elected, and that's not the point. In Australia, where it's been used for over a hundred years, there are still two dominant parties. But it does promote coalition building and gives us a real picture of the values of voters. eg Greens might never win a major election under RCV, but if they get 20% of the first place votes, that WILL get the attention of the major parties. They will cater to those voters. As it is, most voters are scared away from voting their true preferences and they are never heard.

Ya, you talked about this quite a bit in the 3rd party thread I created awhile back and won me over a bit to your points.

Similar reform is on the ballot here in CO. Polis is behind it so there's a good chance it will pass: Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

That is not a challenge to WTA elections? Nice to see RCV moving forward some though. Something similar should be adopted nation wide (state by state not federal), there are no good arguments against it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have no idea what you are saying here other than your usual meaningless nonsense. So I'll exercise my New Year's Resolution at this point and wish you a pleasant day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And eye witness accounts are evidence in court, not hearsay just because you disagree with the witnesses opinion.

Eyewitness testimony is given the lowest reliability of anything because it is proven to be wrong so often. Humans suck!

 

[Curried Goats]

Eyewitness testimony is given the lowest reliability of anything because it is proven to be wrong so often. Humans suck!

Depends on the witness. If you're the type of Moron to testify that the woman you're accused of sexually abusing isn't your type and then you confuse a photo of her for a photo of your wife then yes, you might lose credibility with the jury.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Depends on the witness. If you're the type of Moron to testify that the woman you're accused of sexually abusing isn't your type and then you confuse a photo of her for a photo of your wife then yes, you might lose credibility with the jury.

In what alternative universe that you created did this occur? Do you know how many people were let out of prison after DNA evidence contradicted the victim's eyewitness testimony?

 

[Curried Goats]

In what alternative universe that you created did this occur? Do you know how many people were let out of prison after DNA evidence contradicted the victim's eyewitness testimony?

It happened in this universe during Trump's civil trial over sexual abuse.

Video of Trump confusing E Jean Carroll with ex-wife in deposition is released

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not how this works. It's not on me to prove a negative.

It's on the Prosecution to be sure the grand jury has all the pertinent evidence it needs to come to a decision. I'm pretty darn sure a weaponized government does not provide that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I can't help myself.

How does one prove a negative, exactly?

In this case you show that no exculpatory evidence was withheld from a grand jury.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's on the Prosecution to be sure the grand jury has all the pertinent evidence it needs to come to a decision. I'm pretty darn sure a weaponized government does not provide that.

Who gives a shit what you're sure about fucktard? I asked you what you could prove.

 

[Mac1958]

In this case you show that no exculpatory evidence was withheld from a grand jury.

That's not required. They don't have to show that evidence to a Grand Jury. That's not how it works.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2401&context=wlulr

The Grand Jury and Exculpatory Evidence: Should the Prosecutor Be Required to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury

In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Williams that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. This Note argues that the Williams decision is flawed because it diminishes crucial...

engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not required. They don't have to show that evidence to a Grand Jury. That's not how it works.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2401&context=wlulr

The Grand Jury and Exculpatory Evidence: Should the Prosecutor Be Required to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury

In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Williams that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. This Note argues that the Williams decision is flawed because it diminishes crucial...

engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu

In Williams that is what SCOTUS ruled. And if you read your own link you see the compelling argument that SCOTUS made a very bad ruling. Any HONORABLE prosecutor will not misuse a grand jury by withholding exculpatory evidence. To do so renders the grand jury essentially useless when the prosecutor gives them only prejudicial material to evaluate. When it comes to Trump, so far no prosecutor and precious few judges have operated in an honorable manner. The system is weaponized and used dishonorably against Trump.

And that is why nobody who still has ability to see and understand the situation(s) and capacity to think critically about them believes that Trump committed any crime worthy of prosecution. And why with every dishonorable ruling, his approval ratings and contributions went up.

 

[Mac1958]

In Williams that is what SCOTUS ruled. And if you read your own link you see the compelling argument that SCOTUS made a very bad ruling. Any HONORABLE prosecutor will not misuse a grand jury by withholding exculpatory evidence. To do so renders the grand jury essentially useless when the prosecutor gives them only prejudicial material to evaluate. When it comes to Trump, so far no prosecutor and precious few judges have operated in an honorable manner. The system is weaponized and used dishonorably against Trump.

And that is why nobody who still has ability to see and understand the situation(s) and capacity to think critically about them believes that Trump committed any crime worthy of prosecution. And why with every dishonorable ruling, his approval ratings and contributions went up.

He didn't have to provide exculpatory evidence. That's a fact.

And the fact that he did not does not mean the case was rigged. That's just a simplistic assumption and the same weak excuse we get whenever Trump doesn't get his way.

 

[Foxfyre]

He didn't have to provide exculpatory evidence. That's a fact.

And the fact that he did not does not mean the case was rigged. That's just a simplistic assumption and the same weak excuse we get whenever Trump doesn't get his way.

Whenever a prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence it's a pretty safe bet the case is rigged. And that's a fact.