This just in: fair trials are for suckers. Bring back the Kangaroo court.

Why is it not a particularly reliable measure?

We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.

I agree it’s probably not helpful for the DOJ to receive so much scrutiny, but I’m not aware that he said anything about speaking out against an injustice. According to Barr’s re-recommendation we are in agreement about the unjust recommendation. Add on top of that the biased jury foreman who was only discovered after the conviction, we are long past the mere appearance of bias.

No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. Does the tweet enter into the evidence? Does the tweet stew in the head of the judge or jury so much that it changes their partiality? I just cannot see it. So no, to remain silent on matters of injustice is unequivocally right.

a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?

I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.

Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.

First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate. Either way, how does a tweet have any bearing on a trial? If it does interfere that is a problem with the justice system, not the person who tweeted.

You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?

Again, I was speaking about the recommendation of the DOJ for a lesser sentence. Someone linked to an article saying it was corruption. I said it sounded it justice. If you don’t want to know what I meant, why ask?

You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?

I was speaking about DOJ’s decision to change its recommendation.

I believe it is unjust to punish someone in a manner not appropriate to their crime.

Again your assumption that Trump’s tweet somehow influenced Barr’s decision is just that, an assumption, and one that isn’t backed by any evidence save for fantasy. Carry on with your analysis.

1. If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

I have never supported POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes. The question is loaded because it assumes, without evidence, that POTUS was influencing DOJ.

In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:

"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."

What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?

If the means were unjust I wouldn't support it.

3. You said: "Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system". Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?

It would and it was.

4. You said: "It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther". Question to you: "If they were Trump supporting Republican would it have been rigged in Stone’s favour?"

It would, yes. Do you think it would not be?

That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati.

Ok, take a deep breath. Before I present my questions, here's my premise. I will prove, by way of the simple questions that are forthcoming, that your reasoning ( treating like cases likely, and different cases differently) is highly suspect and fundamentally flawed.

Now, taking it a step further and I suggest you put your big-boy pants on here, I will demonstrate that individuals like yourself, who have right-wing extremist views (and you are welcome to prove me wrong there) are not only dangerous to our democracy, but lack the common sense required to fully grasp what it means to have a good conscience, accountability, impartial ideology, and objective views and principles necessary to prosecute public policy.

So, basically, just like your Dumpertrumper behaves, I will spare the euphemisms and political correctness to directly attack you whenever the opportunity presents itself. For example, you seemingly are evading some of the preliminary questions already, and as such, you will get no hall pass from me. Not only will you be required to answer them, you will be required to have thick-skin. And by the same token, you are free to attack me in whatever method that suits you. You are even welcome to submit personal attacks if that makes you feel good, just like your boss does. Are you brave enough to take the challenge?

How dramatic. I can't wait.

That closes the debate. You've won! :lol:

Thanks :ok: .

Particularly in the United States, the term "socialization" has been mistakenly used to refer to any state or government-operated industry or service (the proper term for such being either nationalization or municipalization). It has also been incorrectly used to mean any tax-funded programs, whether privately run or government run.

Well, then it doesn’t sound like you would agree that Sanders is indeed a socialist because he calls these parts of our system “socialism”. He wants to make the power companies public, too. He wants union rights, subsidizing clean energy instead of oil and gas as they do now, higher marginal tax rates, Medicare for all, free public colleges, student loan forgiveness, etc. He says he’s going to pay for all of this mainly by raising taxes on the wealthy, a wealth tax, and modest tax increases on the middle class. I say he’s dreaming, but God bless him! I don’t disagree with him.

He's a self-described socialist, has backed the Socialist Worker's party, has applauded bread lines, etc. So though I agree his policies may not be technically socialist he has certainly promoted socialism and has referred to himself as one. I'll take him at his word, but you're right.

They are for the social benefit. At least they are supposed to be.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

But they’re not a private police force, like a security detail would be. They’re public.

I'm not disputing that at all.

Did you so much as glance at the wiki on social ownership?

I read your quotes, yes. Are you also going to claim that you own the police, fire departments, public parks and the military?

The police motto is To serve and protect. It’s meant to be that way. Just because police forces across the country have been corrupted to mainly harass the poor, doesn’t mean that they aren’t supposed to be public servants.

It doesn't mean the public owns the police either.

All of them.

I dare you to say that to the police officer the next time you get pulled over.

Which public entities, lands and institutions do you own?

What do you think "public" means?

What do you think ownership means?

You have use of public education, the fire department, police, public roads, postal service, Medicaid, Medicare, social security. Etc.

Because I pay for their service, not because I own them.

How does “social ownership” fit into your definition? Will you say that me paying taxes means I own the post-office?

"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."

Exactly.

Don’t take his word for it. Google what conservative scholars think about Social Security and Medicare, as examples. Google “tax is theft” while you’re at it.

I’m well aware of American rhetoric around what “socialism” means. Bernie sanders himself once said Denmark was socialist. But Denmark is a market economy.

If the United States already has “socialist institutions”, I guess we don’t need democratic socialists to run things.

Invented by any socialist?

As if the only thing that counts as socialist is that which is invented by some socialist?

That's part of the problem with the term being bandied about. People do not know what sort of socialism is already deeply embedded in America.

You just claimed that institutions are socialist when they "place what's best for the overall community at the forefront". Sorry friend, but that's ridiculous.

They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.

I can't agree with that. Public education, post offices, fire departments, infrastructure, etc were not invented by any socialist.

Post office. Public education. Fire department. Police department. Department of interior. Land and natural resources. All infrastructure. Etc.

Wait...how are those socialist?

During nation debates, the misconception of negativity towards Bernie due to 'socialism' would be rendered null and void to anyone who is reasonable enough to recognize the deep seated 'socialist' institutions that have always been a part of America.

Which socialist institutions?

And that’s exactly why I understand how Trump got elected. I voted for Sanders then Hillary in 2016. I’m sure the Republican House and Senate in 2017 would have impeached her for something (her emails maybe?) We live in an age where government can’t do anything without the presidency and both chambers solidly in one party.

I disagree with Trump’s proposed budget, the new tax code, the right-wing judges, the environmental deregulation, the immigration policies, and just about everything else he’s done. He really is far right wing on a lot of issues. He is for better trade deals, however, so we will see what he gets done there.

See I think he's more left-wing than the typical Republican. Either way, he's certainly an aberration from the party's standards.

What's your take on the votes that Bernie would take from Trump, if Sanders is awarded the nomination?

Sanders poses the biggest threat to Trump, in my opinion. I actually want Sanders to win the primary because I hate the establishment, the DNC, and their tools in the media. But I think there is still massive anti-socialist sentiment in the United States, that the Democrats would lose many voters and go to Trump. Either way it would be an interesting election.

I do not think that "partisan differences" is what the framers were warning about. To quite the contrary, they were warning about what could happen when and if political parties were established.

To be clear. The framers were putting forth an unacceptable consequence of forming political parties(factions) themselves. It was a warning not about some unacceptable kind of impeachment, but rather it was a warning about the results of forming political parties altogether.

The prosecution failed to seize on that.

You could be right as far as I know. I can't say I've read up on it that much, but I am aware of Hamilton's distaste for parties and factions, though Franklin I think disagreed. I could be wrong.

I’ve always voted Democratic. I guess that makes me a Democrat. However, I would have been happy under Eisenhower, I think. George H.W. Bush wasn’t bad for a Reaganomics-type president. Obama was a disappointment for me, but I do believe that his and George W. Bush’s policies got us out of the Global Financial Crisis, even though Clinton and Bush, Jr. paved the way into it.

I can totally understand how Trump got elected. I just don’t see any policies of his that I like (to put it mildly).

I don't blame you. I voted twice for Obama and now sort of regret it, though I still like him. I can't stand the Bush dynasty nor its legacy, however.

For me at least, Trump represents a rebuke to the Ivy-League style of politics. I'm done with talkers and the public/private, public relations form of politics, where they promise us one thing and we end up with another. I'm not sure if I would like Trump as a person given that I haven't spent any time with him, but so far I'm with him on policy and general philosophy (if you could call it that). Mostly I just want to see him serve out his terms so we can judge the results.

...great! I'm going to add some from my other thread, so if you don't mind there might be a total of 20 questions or so. Is that alright?

Again it's not meant to embarrass you, but only to demonstrate where you're likely inconsistent in your reasoning.

In the meantime if you want to try to tackle those four questions I'd greatly appreciate it! If not that's okay, I'll add them to the running list.

You've only offered me loaded questions. If you could correct that I would be happy to answer them. Is that ok?

What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?

I think they're right. I don't think someone should be impeached because of partisan differences. I think the bar should be set much higher for impeachment, especially when it comes to democratically-elected officials. What do you think?

You’re welcome. I’m very passionate about politics. I have been ever since 9/11. I may get personal sometimes, but I fight like a Republican. Just know that I don’t hate everyday people. I mostly hate the people on TV, which I think is part of the design to divide the nation against itself so the corporations can keep the government divided and ineffective.

You're a Democrat? I've never liked either party and will remain an independant, though I do favor the Republicans more and more these days. But I'm with you: I hate the people on TV. I hate fox news as much as I hate CNN. I would also include in that celebrities and those who give each other golden statues at award shows.

Okay. I just want you to know that I don’t hate Trump supporters. I just hate Trump.

That's fair and I appreciate that. The going rate was me being accused of being a troll or Russian bot, so this is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.