I apply one standard.
The Democrats apply two standards.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republicans consider removing Biden from state ballots. A new fad is born.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
The Democrats apply two standards.
George Washington
*banned*
That's a very complex question. But to be clear, it's not in America's best interest to abandon NATO, or our closest allies. Nobody wants to give our friends the cold shoulder, for sure.
But we should not be friends with other governments who violate human rights. It sends the wrong message, and it drains resources that could benefit American citizens instead.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Except that they do, apparently have legal justification for doing so. It's called the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. You're acting as though they're just making this stuff up out of thin air.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well apparently the wording in the Amendments aren't good enough to settle on conclusivity as to what it exactly means, which of course is why it's undoubtedly going to be headed to the Supreme Court of the United States and have it settled one way or another.
A running tradition of vagueness in this country.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Certainly not from what I've observed.
You ignore that what we are seeing happening in the courts IS due process. This amendment is vague and the courts have to figure out what it means and what the limits are. New ground, and of course it's Trump that brings us here.
Trump is getting due process in all of his legal situations, and being treated better than an average citizen, so he is getting preferential treatment. What would be a violation is if a president arrested a rival candidate, as we see in Russia. Trump has suggested he would do this himself. And right wingers claim Trump is being targeted by the DOJ, well, notice there are actual crimes that he's been recorded doing for all of us to see. The right wants Trump to be given immunity, even though that is baseless in the law. Trump's lawyers will try to argue in the SC that he had immunity as president, and if that's the case, well Biden can have Trump arrested and help in prison at any time. Biden could have anyone killed who says anything bad about him. Biden could just stay in office if he loses the election.
My guess right wingers want immunity for Trump, but not for Biden.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You said, "In the way they're doing Trump a favor by publicly displaying their incredible ignorance and unquenchable lust for collective power and control as they try to eliminate Trump from every ballot they have without any legal justification for doing so , aside from just accusing somebody who's not even convicted of anything yet, and using a jury- less Judge Judy Court to do it."
They do have legal justification as per the Constitution. You don't get to pretend they're just pulling this out of thin air.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And what is it that he needs immunity from, exactly, if he hasn't done anything wrong?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The thing is, this really isn't about Trump or Biden. It's about the Integrity of the election system and the Integrity of the court system.
That's where most of these arguments stem from. I'm sure you would agree with me that if one can do it to one, one can do it to another, and that's not really a good recipe for a free country that supposedly prides itself on fairness and due process.
A question: in your country is pleading the fifth amendment a privilege that only defendants have...
or even witnesses can plead it?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
We don't have that in Canada.
As far as I know, witnesses can "plead the fifth" in the US to avoid incriminating themselves.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Would you say that it would be unwise to allow despotic regimes to carry out unprovoked invasions and war crimes with impunity?
Israel is right in targeting and destroying Hamas, but they've stained their hands with innocent blood with their chosen approach.
Conservatives often say this, yet they tend to oppose social programs that seek to aid Americans in need.
Interesting. Thank you.
So if someone is asked about the shady things that dems did during elections, they can plead the fifth.
Last edited:
Excatly. It Trump is innocent of anything why a need for immunity? Why try to delay trials if he hasn't done anything illegal? I'll bet for the same resons so many of Trump insiders wanted pardons before he left office: they were informed by legal counsel that they are in legal jeoardy.
There is a book coming out by the guy who Trump hired to find election fraud. He found none.
Disproven
Many searched for evidence of voter fraud in 2020, only a few were unbiased professionals . . . and only one has written a book about his experienc...
www.simonandschuster.com
The election system is highly secure, so you don't have much to worry about. As far as courts, well I do agree there are some unqualified judges, and there should be better methods to ensure they are objective and moderate. I think federal court judges, including the supreme court justices, should have a high bar, like 2/3 of the senate to confirm. There should also be ethics reform forced on the SC given the lost credibility due to suspicious gifts that's been disclosed.
Voter data expert hired by Trump campaign says 2020 election was not stolen
Ken Block, whom the Trump campaign hired in 2020 to find voter fraud in the election, penned an op-ed Tuesday stating unequivocally that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and that there…
thehill.com
The whole Jan 6 riot/insurrection was based on Trump's lies about election fraud, and he continues with these lies despite all reputable investigations showing no fraud. Trump is certainly guilty of this deception that still fools his followers today.
You don't seem to have much knowledge about how law works. Most crimes have established precedents so it is fairly easy to apply them in new cases. With Trump's criminal activity, much of it as president, there is little to no precedent to follow, so the courts have to procede step by step, and arguments being made and being ruled on. I see many on the right insist this isn't due process when in fact this IS how due process works. The claims and crimes are being tested in the law, and with Trump as a criminal president there is a lot of new ground. The same with his crimes being the basis for his removal from state ballots. It's all new, so there has to be legal processes before the issues are resolved.
No one has to talk to the police. But there's no reason a witness needs to plead the 5th if they are just bystanders.
If a witness is in a conspiracy with a person to commit crimes, like a bank robbery, that witness can plead the 5th to not incriminate the self. The prosecutor can give the witness immunity from any crime they did in exchange for testimony. This is what many co-conspirators with Trump are doing. In the Georgia election fraud conspiracy four people, three of them lawyers, have plea deals in exchange for testimony against the other accused.
There is a difference between criminal and civil cases. If a person pleads the 5th in criminal court it can't be used against them since guilt is derived from evidence. But in civil court pleading the 5th indicates guilt and accountability, and can be used against the person.
Interesting. Because in my country defendants can plead the fifth. Witnesses cannot. If they refuse to answer a question, they are jailed for reticent testimony. Both in civil and in criminal procedure.
It seems strange that you'd complain about how you don't want to be seen as having poor judgment and in the next breath call an apartheid state a "bastion of freedom."
Well, witnesses can run afoul of obstruction of justice in the U.S. They don't have admit to any criminal acts that they did, but they have to cooperate in telling what other people did. An example might be a journalist who might receive evidence from a source and use it as a news story. If it turns out the evidence is stolen, then the journalist will be questioned by police and asked to give the name of the source of information. They could be jailed if they refuse
@Estro Felino
In Canada it works a bit differently. We still have the right not to self-incriminate, but we don't have the right to remain silent in court. Instead, a witness's testimony in court can't be used as evidence in a prosecution against them, except for perjury:
www.mpllp.com
From what I remember from my introductory law course, this can sometimes be pretty meager protection. If you announce on the stand where the bodies are buried, your testimony can't be used against you in court directly, but the police can use the information you provided to find the bodies, collect physical evidence linking you to the crime, and then prosecute you with that.
In Canada it works a bit differently. We still have the right not to self-incriminate, but we don't have the right to remain silent in court. Instead, a witness's testimony in court can't be used as evidence in a prosecution against them, except for perjury:
No right to remain silent
MacDonald & Partners LLP serves the Toronto, North York, and Etobicoke area for Family Law issues including, Divorce, Contracts, Mediation and Litigation.
From what I remember from my introductory law course, this can sometimes be pretty meager protection. If you announce on the stand where the bodies are buried, your testimony can't be used against you in court directly, but the police can use the information you provided to find the bodies, collect physical evidence linking you to the crime, and then prosecute you with that.