So him being found guilty wouldn't affect the odds at all, and him being found innocent wouldn't affect the odds at all?

I hate judges and lawyers. I despise the whole profession and the system upon which it is maintained. I don’t even like the US constitution. The only thing that would affect my own beliefs would be the evidence.

"In one phone conversation, according to handwritten notes taken by Donoghue and highlighted at Thursday’s hearing, Trump directed Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-elections-donald-trump-campaigns-presidential-4e7e68e2ff57aadd96d09c873a43a317

You're OK with that?

I hate judges and lawyers. I despise the whole profession and the system upon which it is maintained. I don’t even like the US constitution. The only thing that would affect my own beliefs would be the evidence. — NOS4A2

I understand your scepticism, but the evidence you are looking for needs to be proven in court. It is just my own belief, but a court room should be the only place where the evidence is the object of debate and contradiction. I mean, it is not a TV show or plot. If we allow people to interpret the evidence freely, we have the risk of never knowing the truth. In this case, we need an order and that's why people go to court. Whether the system could be flawed or not. Better this than nothing, don't you think?

Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means. — NOS4A2

Well, that is a step in the right direction, but you leave the back door open. To say that it is possible he lost is to say it is possible he did not lose. If he lost then attempts to "take it back", no matter by the means, is illegal. To act on the possibility he did not lose when the evidence points unquestionably to the fact that he did lose is to act irresponsibly and any lawyer who knowingly attempts to "take it back" demonstrates either a disregard for the law or in inability to deal with reality. In either case, they are unfit to practice law.

I can agree to that. The court is a good venue in which to argue the evidence. What I mean is I need to see the evidence and use my own judgement rather than trust the word of some judge or juror. That is why I hope these trials are broadcasted live.

I don’t even like the US constitution. — NOS4A2

May I ask, why?

The integrity and trust the public has in the election process is crucial and implicit in the idea of a Democracy. It follows that there is a fundamental right that every citizen is entitled to question the integrity of the result, to protest, to pursue any and every administrative and judicial means to ensure the result is fairly conducted.

Not permitting elections to be challenged is that which is anti-democratic. This is what neurotic pseudo democracies, tin-pot dictatorships do. Pursing legal action against Trump or anyone who challenges an election is the crime. This is Democracy in name only.

It does not matter how Trump said it. There are thousands of ways to interpret everything anyone might say. This type of argumentation belongs on the schoolyard - which is pretty much the standard of our collective public discourse. The partisanship is just f... insane.

Notice, how the actual detail and substance of Trump's claims are never discussed. The irregularities are too large to cover. They are dismissed because "the courts dismissed them" But the courts did not dismiss the claims - the courts refused to hear them.

It is clear that the Public is easily manipulated by its media. We are all it's victims. The truth is the collective media refused to take the myriad of real anomalies in the 2020 election seriously. On the other hand, following the 2016 result, the very same media decided to make the Russian election interference into an issue when it lacked any facts at all to support the claim. And although that Russian myth has been repeatedly substantiated as complete nonsense our collective brains remain addled with Russian hysteria.

At this point I'm convinced all of us, including myself, are not just confused but mentally deranged. We increasingly believe completely illogically nonsense about just about everything. Forget turtles its nonsense all the way down.
It all began when we discovered that buildings could collapse in defiance of physical laws, Mosques hid terrorists, Bombing countries became virtuous, GDP could be increased by printing money, Carbon is toxic, we all have repressed memories of sexual abuse and that all our white impoverished, illiterate, poor ancestors were really privileged racists.

Thank god for porn and butt toys.

It is clear that the Public is easily manipulated by its media. — yebiga

Isn't that a good thing, after all, the media always tells the truth and is looking out for the best interests of the people?

The truth is the collective media refused to take the myriad of real anomalies in the 2020 election seriously. — yebiga

It really doesn't matter much what the media did, Trump's team brought their evidence to MANY courts and they were laughed out of every court room for insufficient evidence.

Trump isn't on trial for questioning the results. Trump is on trial for what he did to get the results changed. It's very dishonest to say he's on trial for asking questions.

Isn't that a good thing, after all, the media always tells the truth and is looking out for the best interests of the people? — Merkwurdichliebe

I hope you are talking ironically. It is a fact that Trump was already sentenced by the media, but now we have to see what will happen when he faces the trial.

It really doesn't matter much what the media did — flannel jesus

Why not? I see double standards here. You are complaining about Trump's behaviour in the 2020 election, but you see OK how the media try to manipulate us... This is a contradiction, don't you think?

No, I don't even see how you see there's a contradiction.

You have some assumptions here, as well, that are very premature. Do you know that you weren't manipulated by the media you've been consuming? You're assuming it's everyone else that's been manipulated and not you, but you've been consuming media too, presumably you are capable of conceiving of the possibility that it's you who's been manipulated by the media you're consuming, and the rest of the media has been reporting most of the stuff going on with Trump with more objectivity than the media you consume.

Can you imagine a world where that's the case?

The courts didn't give him standing, they didn't hear the substance of the claims.

Imagine you saw an election in another country where the people counting the votes are screening the view from official scrutineers using cardboard? Imagine, just the 6 states that will decide the vote all cease counting at exactly the same time - just as one candidate is about 10 minutes from winning if the trend continues - and then after the inexplicable pause - the trend miraculously reverts to the other candidate? In any other country, at almost any other time in history, there would have been an insurrection. But in our modern USA, in the land of the free and independent not the anomalies were memory holed. This is a farce of democracy.

What happened? Biden received the most votes in history. A man barely coheren,t who could not fill a town hall , is claimed to have received a record number of votes. And when the vote was challenged, not a single mainstream media outlet wanted the ratings bonanza of turning it into a scandal. No court would hear it. But the same courts were eager to elevate a guided tour of the Capitol building as something akin to the storming of the Bastille.

Whatever all this is, it is not a democracy.

You're assuming it's everyone else that's been manipulated and not you, but you've been consuming media too, — flannel jesus

I do not consume media. I just try to figure out what happens by myself, only if I am capable of doing so. But, one of my main purposes, is to get away from the media as much as I can. It is obvious that journalists are not the ones who are there to tell the truth, are they anyway? I am learning more on this forum than anywhere else.

Can you imagine a world where that's the case? — flannel jesus

Absolutely. But I do not know any. Can you please tell me one press which acts objectively?

The courts didn't give him standing, they didn't hear the substance of the claims. — yebiga

"In his Nov. 21 order dismissing the case, Brann criticized the Trump campaign for seeking to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its election results without presenting any evidence to support such a “drastic remedy.”

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/rudy-giulianis-bogus-election-fraud-claims/

Did you believe in Sydney Powell's Kraken?

I do not consume media. I just try to figure out what happens by myself, only if I am capable of doing so. — javi2541997

You can't do that without consuming media. You don't have access to the raw data, you only have access to information filtered through previous information sources - IE media. You cannot "figure out" what happens without consuming media.

Absolutely. But I do not know any. Can you please tell me one press which acts objectively? — javi2541997

I said more objectively, not objectively.

If one media outlet is saying he's done criminal things, and the other media outlet is saying he hasn't done criminal things, one of those is probably being more objective than the other.

It is clear that the Public is easily manipulated by its media. — yebiga

As soon as that is clear, worrying about election rigging and democracy is redundant. The people who pull the strings of the public will pull them anyway. This is a claim that is made by *looks around at presidential history* Reagan and Trump, the media star presidents.

And when the vote was challenged, not a single mainstream media outlet wanted the ratings bonanza of turning it into a scandal. — yebiga

It’s been a scandal since day one, what are you talking about?

You can't do that without consuming media. You don't have access to the raw data, you only have access to information filtered through previous information sources - IE media. You cannot "figure out" what happens without consuming media. — flannel jesus

Well, I think that's sad and non democratic. Since each piece of information is filtered into the press and media, we (the "consumers") will receive a biased information and not the real facts. I wonder, would we know all the truth of Trump's case one day? We have the right to doubt on the information provided by the press and media, and we should not believe in them blindly.

If one media outlet is saying he's done criminal things, and the other media outlet is saying he hasn't done criminal things, one of those is probably being more objective than the other. — flannel jesus

Oh, really? :roll: I only see biassed and bipartisan interests here...

sure, every source is a little biased. Doesn't mean some aren't less biased than others.

Just ask yourself what would the right wing media, that's currently saying trump did nothing wrong, react like if Biden does the same thing in 2024? If Biden loses, starts calling states asking to find him votes, hires some fake electors to falsify electoral college votes, convinces a crowd of his followers to storm the capitol?

Imagine, just the 6 states that will decide the vote — yebiga

That is a problem that no one ever talks about. Even canpaign finance reform has been discussed. But I can understand your distress. Despite that, their is much valid argument contradicting your claim.

I hope you are talking ironically.

It is a fact that Trump was already sentenced by the media — javi2541997

I always hope my facetiousness communicates in text.

That is nothing new. Plenty of people are demonized by the media apriori, which stirs public opinion prior to due process. What's wrong with that? :wink:

to tell the truth, my philosohical method is to apply the facetious to the presuppositions of my interlocutor, whom I take full responsibility for - in the endeavor of honestly and criticallly questioning one's own presuppositions.

I agree.

You agree with me in admitting that the press will manipulate us one side or the other. It is just my personal opinion, but if the press were not that biassed, maybe the capitol accident would not have happened. This scenario was completely out of Trump's hands and maybe he didn't even expect such action from his sympathisers. I think, thinking otherwise is twisted. Some people would be happy if Trump continued on this path, because he is in the middle of a hurricane. Maybe the press is manipulating us to speak and debate on the 2020 issue instead of the Afghanistan crisis. Maybe...

to tell the truth, my philosohical method is to apply the facetious to the presuppositions of my interlocutor, whom I take full responsibility for - in the endeavor of honestly and criticallly questioning one's own presuppositions. — Merkwurdichliebe

Good method! I like it. :up:

You agree with me in admitting that the press will manipulate us one side or the other. — javi2541997

The purpose of the modern press is to propagandize us, not inform us. No?

thanks :starstruck:

but if the press were not that biassed, maybe the capitol accident would not have happened. — javi2541997

How do you figure?

This scenario was completely out of Trump's hands — javi2541997

https://time.com/6199490/trump-jan-6-oath-dereliction-duty/

“There’s no ambiguity in what he said,” Kinzinger said. “Almost everybody wanted Trump to instruct the mob to disperse. Trump refused.”

You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-has-firsthand-testimony-ivanka-asked-trump-intervene-n1286831

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes

"President Trump sat in his dining room and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff closest advisers and family members begged him to do what is expected of any American president."

This all puts me in a position where I have to wonder, did he in fact want what happened to happen?