SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by khallow
Once more, we have journals about the alleged insurrection of January 6. My take on that is that even if you're a US poster, the US is a free country and thus, you are free to be idiots. I'm also free to tell you that.
But you miss the real story. I quite agree that Trump riled up a bunch of loyal supporters and pointed them at the Capitol. I quite agree that he and his lackeys then dragged their feet on defending the Capitol from a riot that he caused. Those are shitty moves, but genuine politics - meaning any supporter who put up with his shenanigans (he's done worse) to that point isn't going to be concerned about some more shenanigans. Maybe it even rises to the level of insurrection though I'd like to see more there than some impotent whining that Trump didn't sign a confession.
The nasty move is near instantly throwing those supporters under the bus. This is the real Trump. They did what Trump wanted them to do and now they're fucked without a word of encouragement or any other support from Trump. Same goes for the people who filed all those useless lawsuits.
He's over it.
Here, we have naked betrayal of his most loyal followers - rewarded for their efforts with prison time and huge fines. If Trump's critics can't run with that, then we need a new batch.
But you miss the real story. I quite agree that Trump riled up a bunch of loyal supporters and pointed them at the Capitol. I quite agree that he and his lackeys then dragged their feet on defending the Capitol from a riot that he caused. Those are shitty moves, but genuine politics - meaning any supporter who put up with his shenanigans (he's done worse) to that point isn't going to be concerned about some more shenanigans. Maybe it even rises to the level of insurrection though I'd like to see more there than some impotent whining that Trump didn't sign a confession.
The nasty move is near instantly throwing those supporters under the bus. This is the real Trump. They did what Trump wanted them to do and now they're fucked without a word of encouragement or any other support from Trump. Same goes for the people who filed all those useless lawsuits.
He's over it.
Here, we have naked betrayal of his most loyal followers - rewarded for their efforts with prison time and huge fines. If Trump's critics can't run with that, then we need a new batch.
One more on that January 6 protest
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 102 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Do not use if foil seal is broken.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @04:14PM (28 children)
Heh, Not that you ever listen, but I already told you plea deals don't count. It just releases the prosecutor from having to prove anything.. very convenient. No insurrection has been proven in court so far. No evidence of such has been publicly released. Like with your Russiagate, you still only have hearsay from interested parties
I know you don't realize it, but your theatrics only help the republicans. Your party squandered another two years, well, not really, most, the important ones anyway, are well financed and will still be reelected.. Mission accomplished!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @04:31PM
Look, hookers and blow is not a bad platform.
I apologize for giggling at it, but I'm frustrated that the Libertarian Party doesn't take a 9A approach to abortion to go with their 9A plank of anti-vaxx bodily integrity, and instead gets lost in the marsh of the 10A. Strictly speaking, hookers and blow is a step in the right direction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 02 2022, @05:33PM (9 children)
Or, they remember there was a fucking documentary crew filming them when they committed all their crimes and decided a plea deal would result in less time.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2022, @06:18PM (8 children)
Hi, I'm here to tell you that you're being an idiot. Seditious conspiracy doesn't film well - it's not whacking people with a flagpole levels of obviousness. And if it were somehow that well documented, we'd have everyone plea bargaining not just two weak links.
Also consider that phrase you wrote "and decided a plea deal would result in less time". Seditious conspiracy is not the only crime where plea deals can result in less time, even if you admit to crimes you didn't do!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 02 2022, @06:42PM (7 children)
Sure bro, people on tape talking about their plans to prevent Congress from certifying the election is a super hard conspiracy conviction!
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2022, @07:41PM (6 children)
You keep whistling past that graveyard. It actually is hard because you need more than just talk.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @08:01PM
Goal posts are heavy, your back ok?
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 02 2022, @08:02PM (4 children)
Yeah, sure, it's not like a bunch of people verbally agreeing to a specific set of illegal plans is a conspiracy or anything!
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @09:01PM
Arguing with a five year old is so ridiculous. Yet we have large toddlers with access to guns and they have a tenuous grasp on reality. So. Fun.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday August 03 2022, @03:17AM (2 children)
We'll see if they actually did that. There will be a trial, right?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2022, @10:29PM (1 child)
What?? Do we look like Republicans or something?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2022, @05:21PM
Summertime in the USA yet for some reason conservative snowflakes are still around!
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday August 02 2022, @06:08PM (16 children)
Whether they were convicted in court vs. taking a plea deal makes no difference; they are still considered convicted of a crime.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2022, @06:29PM (10 children)
A person would also be considered convicted if the police framed them by planting evidence. Merely being considered "convicted of a crime" is not that relevant legally when we have dysfunctional legal processes at play. Plea bargaining is presently one of those dysfunction processes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @07:15PM (7 children)
Do you have any evidence that the police framed them in this case?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2022, @07:45PM (6 children)
Nope, and I don't think that's an issue here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2022, @07:35PM (5 children)
If you don't think that's an issue in this case then why did you mention it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2022, @10:48PM (4 children)
The dictionary is your friend. Look up "hypothetical".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2022, @11:05PM (3 children)
Yes, I'm sure we all know the meaning of hypothetical, but that is not what khallow claimed. When pressed about people being convicted or taking plea deals, khallow suggested that some of these people were being "framed" by the police. This wreaks yet again of deflection. When I asked him if he had any evidence to support his accusation he said no. Again, this wreaks of khallow's standard playbook of deflection when cornered. Of course, if he does find any evidence that people were being framed by the police then he should put it forward so that we can all evaluate it on its merits.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 04 2022, @02:19AM (2 children)
Actually it is what I claimed. Reading comprehension is your friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2022, @08:59AM (1 child)
hypothetically guilt of a crime is not proven in disfunctional legal process, just as insurrection cannot happen in disfunctional political processes. got it: US was always a bannana republic, not worthy of serious consideration.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 05 2022, @11:52AM
As has been noted, the defendant is just as convicted.
Maybe learn something next time rather than sputter non sequiturs?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday August 04 2022, @05:29AM (1 child)
I agree that plea bargaining in the US is rife with problems, but in functioning democracies we still see conviction rates of up to 95% without trials. This is because some cases are so open-and-shut that the felon has no advantage in taking the case to trial. For example, someone charged with car theft is likely to take a plea deal when there is CCTV footage of them stealing the car, their prints are all over the wheel, and the car was recovered from their property.
Taking a plea deal should be considered functionally equivalent to being found guilty in court (again, functioning democracies only - USA need not apply).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 04 2022, @12:26PM
No and that's why.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 02 2022, @06:44PM (4 children)
Correct.
Except in the Bizarro World, where admitting to your crimes is actually evidence that you are innocent!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2022, @10:29PM
It's not evidence, it doesn't prove the crime was committed. Plea deals are a fatal flaw of the legal system
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 03 2022, @04:17AM (2 children)
Nobody claimed that. With such logic fails in your toolbox, no wonder you're having so much trouble with this discussion. "Not evidence for" != "evidence against". Here's an example.
I have a car that is gray. Clearly, that isn't evidence for the guilt of Trump. So are we then to suppose that it is evidence for his innocence? Of course not!
So why then, is the observation that the US plea bargain process is seriously corrupt somehow actually evidence for innocence? I'll note that nobody has made that claim, well aside from you and maybe an AC. The rest of us understand the argument - namely that it's an argument making the case that a plea deal is not evidence of guilt for the crime in question because of the perverse incentive structure to plea guilty to whatever in order to avoid a worse fate.
Earlier, when this was discussed, Beryllium Sphere discussed [soylentnews.org] an example where an innocent person pleading innocent would spend more time in jail than if they plead guilty. From the linked story [blogspot.com]:
Defenders of the insurrection narrative have repeatedly made the mistake that criticism of the various bad assumptions made are somehow a defense of Trump. Instead, it's a defense of just law and process. This hubbub illustrates so many of the weaknesses and injustice of the US system, from Congressional investigations that do remarkably little even for political expedience to decades old institutional failings.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 03 2022, @04:25PM (1 child)
You, personally, use plea deals as evidence of innocent all the damn time!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by khallow on Thursday August 04 2022, @12:51AM
Here: [soylentnews.org]
In both cases, you insist something goes on all the time when it doesn't. In the first case, I have never used plea deals as evidence of innocence. That's just a profound misunderstanding on your side. The point I make is that a guilty plea is not evidence of guilt for a particular crime because the incentives can be set up so even a rational innocent people would plea guilty in order to avoid a more punitive court process. Even the guilty can plead guilty to crimes they didn't do in order to reduce punishment for crimes they did do. I think this happens a lot in US criminal trials.
On your second statement, it only took me a minute to see that I had never referred to myself in this entire discussion in the third person aside from this post. And well, I like how the post plays. So I find it interesting how you brought up an irrelevant complaint (and a silly insinuation that I was attempting to post anonymously) rather than good faith argument. I think that sort of shitty argument is the value you bring to the table. You're a great shill - sincere and vocal, but unintentionally sabotaging every argument you make with these profoundly bad fallacies and logic fails.