Gag Order Lifted

[Ana the Ist]

I don't recall this...can you provide an example?



It might be...it might be that you're deeply biased and struggle with confirmation bias.



That Republicans aren't my party of choice.




His son is a criminal...and a bagman for his father.





I would say tried for our own crimes.





Ironically....you want reparations. You want me to pay you for what other white people did to other black people.

I think Joe should be investigated....and it's clear he isn't.




MeToo shirked due process....ruined men's lives without a trial. BLM shirked due process...found innocent cops guilty in the public eye.

Don't lecture me.

If you want to know why I left the left....it's real simple. Race essentialism.

It's oddly difficult to find a basic definition of race essentialism online but here's a rather good if not overly complex one.

APRAF Berlin: Racial Essentialism

www.adrianpiper.com

When Joe Biden solidified the left as firmly race essentialist....and therefore racist...when he stated if you don't vote for him, you aren't black. The entire left had been slowly moving that direction about 10 years earlier with ideas they adopted like "white privilege" that were undeniably race essentialism...but Biden stated it more clearly than any professor could....

The left is for racists...and thats where they can now mostly be found.

Now, I don't see that as the worst thing in the world....it's still enough for me to not defend them. Are there racists on the right? Of course. Is it part and parcel to their political doctrine? No...but we can definitely say it is on the left. We've seen the racism they want to inject into schools....the workplace....and government. That's vile in my eyes.

Why would I support it?

Edit- I just realized how confusing reading that link may be for those...with poor reading skills. I'll just copy-paste the definition.

Racial essentialism is the self-aggrandizing but
delusory belief that the obsolete, pseudoscientific categories that organize the stratification and
segregation of the American caste system -
“race,” “black,” “white,” “mixed race,” and the
like – denote empirically meaningful states of affairs, whether genetic, biological, social, or
visual; and that in particular, the categories by which some attempt to racialize themselves and
others denote actual facts that veridically locate each in relation to the others – i.e. put everyone in
their place. Racial essentialists attempt to
racialize themselves through self-referential
announcements of their “racial” identity in terms of those outmoded categories. They thereby
attempt to racialize their audiences as well, by implication, as either conforming to or diverging
from that “racial” identity. These attempts fail systematically and by definition, because those
categories do not refer to any actual genetic, biological, social, or visual facts at all.

But then racial essentialism does not require ​

any evidential foundation for its ascriptions.
Rather, it reifies those crude racial stereotypes into an unconvincing simulacrum of social reality
in an obsessive-compulsive ritual of wishful thinking. That is the ritual racial essentialists invite
their audiences to reenact.

Just realized reification is probably not a word everyone is familiar with...

Reification - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

Reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as a physical thing.

www.vocabulary.com

 

[A2SG]

On that we would agree... A gag order within the limited scope of protecting key person(s) identities is reasonable considering his (and his inner circle's) history of basically doxxing people.

On that, I would disagree a bit.

One of the benefits of a speedy trial is so a case can be tried in actual court instead of first being tried in the court of public opinion (with the actual court hearings happening weeks to months later)

Living in the information age, that's becoming increasingly difficult. How do you find judges, jurors, expert witnesses, etc... that haven't already had their opinions shaped in one direction or the other? This is a concern I brought up in the lead-up to the Rittenhouse trial.

Given that the court of public opinion is an unfortunate reality that's not going away anytime soon (or ever?), it seems unfair to allow everyone else to provide public commentary on the case, but not the person who's actually on the hot seat.

...and I'm not trying to be a Trump defender here. I think life would be better if he faded away into obscurity. But my sense of "good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality holds fast even if I don't particularly like the person on the hot seat.

Except that Trump was not prohibited from commenting on the trial itself, or his defense. The only prohibition was on personal attacks of court personnel.

He could still proclaim his innocence all he wanted to.

-- A2SG, and did...often....

 

[Fantine]

Personally attacking courthouse personnel is not "defending oneself." And in the case of a defendant whose followers have stormed the Capitol, broken windows and furniture, threatened to hang the VP, caused the deaths of Capitol police, etc. a personal attack could unleash a wave of violence on the victim.
Didn't two Georgia poll workers just win $100 million+ because Guiliani personally attacked them?
When defending oneself, facts should be used--if available.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Personally attacking courthouse personnel is not "defending oneself."

Well....

It is if it's a kangaroo court.

Though the expression is largely gone, we have a victimless "crime" with the judgement predetermined so I think it fits.

And in the case of a defendant whose followers have stormed the Capitol, broken windows and furniture, threatened to hang the VP, caused the deaths of Capitol police, etc.

I think if they could have hoped to charge him with insurrection they would...

It's DC after all, solidly Democrats, wouldn't be difficult to find a grand jury.

Harder to find a judge who wouldn't throw it out. It has to be rather clear.

a personal attack could unleash a wave of violence on the victim.

Or worse....legitimate scrutiny. That's destroying the Georgia case rather quickly and I'm more inclined to believe he's guilty in that one.

Didn't two Georgia poll workers just win $100 million+ because Guiliani personally attacked them?

Well he spread an unsubstantiated rumor. I don't know if there was a personal attack.

When defending oneself, facts should be used--if available.

The fact is its a sham trial. Civil fraud?

Real estate is a speculative market. Market values are haggled but not completely detached from supply/demand. Unless there's some wild changes in real estate under Biden....this case seems to be a sad attempt to remove a political opponent.

 

[Fantine]

When in the same year you inflate value to get loans and greatly underestimate it for taxes that's not market fluctuation. It's fraud.