American Politics

... "It's funny because the judge lied about why he barred critical coverage of his actions and blamed it on a traffic violation"
Question: What do you mean, and what is the basis for your accusation? You've suggested this multiple times at this point, so I would really hope that you would have something to base this idea on. Here is the part of the trial where the judge bars MSNBC from the courthouse. I couldn't find any lie, though you are welcome to point out where you think the lie is. He doesn't claim to know exactly what happened, he just says what he was told happened by Kenosha police and how that brought him to his decision. Also, if this "critical coverage" of his actions is merely MSNBC having their own reporters in the room among the many others from different news sources, it isn't critical -- all of the other sources are doing their very best to get all the details, and it hasn't prevented MSNBC from covering the trial with second-hand sources. Do you need the chance to elaborate, or are you just wrong?
"... [he] banned coverage of proceedings by MSNBC in blatant retaliation for critical coverage of his actions (curious that there's no pictures of the jury busses, despite photographs being the basis of the ban). None of that behaviour is either normal nor appropriate in a court of law, ..."
All of the reporting that I could find indicates that none of this is true. The basis of the ban, as you can see that the judge stated in the video, was the reporter being accused of following the jury bus, not taking photos of it. That would threaten the perceived integrity of the trial, so it was necessary and appropriate for the judge to take action. Given that it is the judge's job to help protect jury integrity, the 'blatant' motivation of the judge was to do so -- the motivation that you've accused him of is merely your personal suspicion that you haven't supported with evidence. Please do so, or reconsider your opinion.

Here are some articles about the subject. They all agree that a person apprehended by police for multiple traffic violations was suspected of following the jury bus, and that the man said that he was told to do so by an employer from MSNBC. NBC News issued a statement that acknowledged the incident and recognized him as a freelancer who was not intended to photograph the jury.
 
Question: What do you mean, and what is the basis for your accusation? You've suggested this multiple times at this point, so I would really hope that you would have something to base this idea on. Here is the part of the trial where the judge bars MSNBC from the courthouse. I couldn't find any lie, though you are welcome to point out where you think the lie is. He doesn't claim to know exactly what happened, he just says what he was told happened by Kenosha police and how that brought him to his decision. Also, if this "critical coverage" of his actions is merely MSNBC having their own reporters in the room among the many others from different news sources, it isn't critical -- all of the other sources are doing their very best to get all the details, and it hasn't prevented MSNBC from covering the trial with second-hand sources. Do you need the chance to elaborate, or are you just wrong?

All of the reporting that I could find indicates that none of this is true. The basis of the ban, as you can see that the judge stated in the video, was the reporter being accused of following the jury bus, not taking photos of it. That would threaten the perceived integrity of the trial, so it was necessary and appropriate for the judge to take action. Given that it is the judge's job to help protect jury integrity, the 'blatant' motivation of the judge was to do so -- the motivation that you've accused him of is merely your personal suspicion that you haven't supported with evidence. Please do so, or reconsider your opinion.

Here are some articles about the subject. They all agree that a person apprehended by police for multiple traffic violations was suspected of following the jury bus, and that the man said that he was told to do so by an employer from MSNBC. NBC News issued a statement that acknowledged the incident and recognized him as a freelancer who was not intended to photograph the jury.
This is a judge that has (very unusually and improperly) complained about coverage of his court throughout the trial. This is a judge with a long history of making wildly illegal rulings based on his personal biases, many of which have been overturned. It's difficult for any observer that doesn't think American Psycho is a self-help book to come to the conclusion that the judge made his decision to bar MSNBC on anything but spite over his challenged authorit-ah.

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the same shitty excuse for a judge played the campaign song of a President who repeatedly tried to censor and incite violence against critical journalists. You can't speak to the motivations of a jurist who tells the jury to applaud defence witnesses. It's impossible to tell what's going through the head of someone who prejudges shooting victims to be "rioters, anarchists, and looters," right? Definitely nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever about the court, which is why human rights organisations around the world have condemned it. That's why living 60s Civil Rights marchers and associates of MLK Jr. have condemned it. That's why even many lawyers who disagree with me on the interpretation of Wisconsin's Dangerous Weapons regulations have still pointed out that the jury instructions and conduct of the jurist were wildly inappropriate.

There are plenty of examples to draw from, ranging from the career of disgraced jurist Julius Hoffman to the legal theories of Weimar jurist and legal theorist Ernst Fraenkel, who literally wrote the book (pps. 95-96) on how the dual nature of the authoritarian state entails the application of different legal and carceral standards for out-groups, creating a privileged legal class made up of Party members or the so-called "racially pure." The evidence lies in Schroeder's actions, which follow patterns of maladministration common to corrupt judges. Going back to Hoffman, I encourage others to read on the trial of the Chicago Seven (the movie's ok but movies take liberties with fact, for example whitewashing Ramsey Clark) to understand this type of judge.
 
boo at a certain point, after saying so many falsehoods, people won’t trust what you have to say anymore. You just keep grasping for straws. Have to say you aren’t making a great case for your argument here.
 
boo at a certain point, after saying so many falsehoods, people won’t trust what you have to say anymore. You just keep grasping for straws. Have to say you aren’t making a great case for your argument here.
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?
 
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?
DTC's point is exactly what you are enforcing right now: if boo is going to accuse the judge of banning MSNBC under false pretenses, boo should provide evidence of that. I told boo that he (I assume) should share counter-evidence if he was going to accuse the judge of falsehood -- boo responded by not doing that, making more unsubstantiated claims, and giving links to a few sources that agree with his narrative but don't provide much relevant evidence themselves. I think that what DTC had to say to boo is actually pretty constructive; at this point boo has spread falsehoods that have cost him credibility, so that even the better points that he makes are obfuscated by the rest of his poor rhetoric. For example:
"You can't speak to the motivations of a jurist who tells the jury to applaud defence witnesses. ..."
This is a reference to the judge asking everyone in the courtroom to applaud for the present veterans in the court, since the occasion was veterans' day. It turned out that the only veteran in the room was a defense witness, and that witness was called immediately afterwards for expert testimony about some documents. Here is a link where you can watch it. I was only able to find it on Facebook. It's definitely a notable blunder, and leaves room for both sides to argue whether or not it underlies bias.
The purpose in bringing this up -- and what DTC was saying -- is that there are some credible points that boo could be making, but his rhetorical zealousness or disregard for supporting his claims undercuts that. Here, for instance, he doesn't say "there is good reason to suspect that the judge was implicitly trying to bolster the defense" and then build upon that argument; instead, he lumps together the evidence with his conclusion, which is both less-than-honest and might lead to people who disagree with his conclusion throwing the evidence out along with it. Boo's other tendency is to simply deliver his narrative without substantiating it, which causes us to dismiss points like these that actually have a lot of potential for him, weakens his case, and leads to him getting a lot of stuff wrong. Here are some of the many examples where boo has made heavy claims without showing us the evidence, which leaves readers not knowing whether or not we can believe him:
"... This is a judge with a long history of making wildly illegal rulings based on his personal biases, many of which have been overturned. ..."
"... -He was not legally allowed to have his weapon there, he transported an illegally obtained weapon over state lines with the intent of using it. The judge based his decision to drop the charges based on a bad-faith reading of the law formulated solely to exempt Rittenhouse. ..."
"It's funny because the judge lied about why he barred critical coverage of his actions and blamed it on a traffic violation"
"There are plenty of examples to draw from, ranging from the career of disgraced jurist Julius Hoffman to the legal theories of Weimar jurist and legal theorist Ernst Fraenkel, who literally wrote the book (pps. 95-96) on how the dual nature of the authoritarian state entails the application of different legal and carceral standards for out-groups, creating a privileged legal class made up of Party members or the so-called "racially pure." The evidence lies in Schroeder's actions, which follow patterns of maladministration common to corrupt judges. ... " (emphasis added)
Even when boo does provide citations, it is insufficient to substantiate his claims. He brings up Julius Hoffman and two pages in particular from Ernst Fraenkel, which describe how Nazi Germany's authoritarian legal system had to set unequal standards for Aryans and Jews -- but he doesn't substantiate his basis for claiming that Schroeder's actions create something related to that. "What did the judge do to bolster an authoritarian state?", we wonder, and he simply asserts that 'the evidence is there' without showing us what it is or demonstrating how that supports his point -- the most important evidence is missing. The evidence can't be debated because there is nothing to debate with, but it has no credibility because it doesn't present itself.

Regardless of whether or not any of these statements in any of these quotes are true, if he showed his sources or at least gave in-detail examples so that we would know specifically what to look for to fact-check his claims, he would be on much stronger footing and people would be able to directly judge his level of credibility.

Even after I put pressure on him to substantiate himself, he didn't take it any farther than empty citations. He'll say things like
"... the court [was out of the ordinary], which is why human rights organisations around the world have condemned it. That's why living 60s Civil Rights marchers and associates of MLK Jr. have condemned it."
but if you visit those sources, they don't condemn the trial itself as uniquely unordinary -- only that 'our country's criminal justice system [generally] ... is predicated on white supremacy and anti-Black racism' instead of what boo is saying, which is that the judge caused this courtroom to be biased. Sources aren't worth anything unless you support what you are saying and demonstrate how that substantiates your argument clearly. Having read and reread his post and his citations, boo delivers on neither.

The final thing that I'll say about the matter is that boo's response to being called out for making unsubstantiated claims isn't acknowledgement, but obfuscation and more poor rhetoric -- which only compounds his loss of credibility. In my post, I asked him to either show that he could back up the claim that the judge lied about MSNBC or to walk it back. That was the only topic of my post, but he didn't respond by addressing any of it; instead, he moved on to a bunch of other talking points about why he doesn't like the judge. If he was interested in maintaining credibility or having a productive discussion, he could have at least said "yeah, I guess I was wrong", "oh, I was misinformed", or linked some surprise supporting sources -- but instead he has ignored it, and tried to usher us on into new topics. So to bring this back to what you and DTC said:

boo at a certain point, after saying so many falsehoods, people won’t trust what you have to say anymore. You just keep grasping for straws. Have to say you aren’t making a great case for your argument here.
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?
Much counter-evidence has been leveled, even though boo brings weak or no evidence to begin with. Boo has made no effort to maintain his credibility, and I agree with DTC that that comes with a cost -- if you don't bring the substance, people are going to stop paying you their attention.
 
Last edited:
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?

Evidentiary standards don't matter to people arguing in bad faith. The only "falsehood" I've made was a mistake on a minor detail of the weapons charges. It's a detail that doesn't change the material fact that Rittenhouse illegally purchased a firearm, or his stated fantasies of murdering people, or that he had a choice to surrender and maintained an active shooter situation that he started.


DTC's point is exactly what you are enforcing right now: if boo is going to accuse the judge of banning MSNBC under false pretenses, boo should provide evidence of that. I told boo that he (I assume) should share counter-evidence if he was going to accuse the judge of falsehood -- boo responded by not doing that, making more unsubstantiated claims, and giving links to a few sources that agree with his narrative but don't provide much relevant evidence themselves. I think that what DTC had to say to boo is actually pretty constructive; at this point boo has spread falsehoods that have cost him credibility, so that even the better points that he makes are obfuscated by the rest of his poor rhetoric. For example:


This is a reference to the judge asking everyone in the courtroom to applaud for the present veterans in the court, since the occasion was veterans' day. It turned out that the only veteran in the room was a defense witness, and that witness was called immediately afterwards for expert testimony about some documents. Here is a link where you can watch it. I was only able to find it on Facebook. It's definitely a notable blunder, and leaves room for both sides to argue whether or not it underlies bias.
The purpose in bringing this up -- and what DTC was saying -- is that there are some credible points that boo could be making, but his rhetorical zealousness or disregard for supporting his claims undercuts that. Here, for instance, he doesn't say "there is good reason to suspect that the judge was implicitly trying to bolster the defense" and then build upon that argument; instead, he lumps together the evidence with his conclusion, which is both less-than-honest and might lead to people who disagree with his conclusion throwing the evidence out along with it. Boo's other tendency is to simply deliver his narrative without substantiating it, which causes us to dismiss points like these that actually have a lot of potential for him, weakens his case, and leads to him getting a lot of stuff wrong. Here are some of the many examples where boo has made heavy claims without showing us the evidence, which leaves readers not knowing whether or not we can believe him:
Even when boo does provide citations, it is insufficient to substantiate his claims. He brings up Julius Hoffman and two pages in particular from Ernst Fraenkel, which describe how Nazi Germany's authoritarian legal system had to set unequal standards for Aryans and Jews -- but he doesn't substantiate his basis for claiming that Schroeder's actions create something related to that. "What did the judge do to bolster an authoritarian state?", we wonder, and he simply asserts that 'the evidence is there' without showing us what it is or demonstrating how that supports his point -- the most important evidence is missing. The evidence can't be debated because there is nothing to debate with, but it has no credibility because it doesn't present itself.

Regardless of whether or not any of these statements in any of these quotes are true, if he showed his sources or at least gave in-detail examples so that we would know specifically what to look for to fact-check his claims, he would be on much stronger footing and people would be able to directly judge his level of credibility.

Even after I put pressure on him to substantiate himself, he didn't take it any farther than empty citations. He'll say things like

but if you visit those sources, they don't condemn the trial itself as uniquely unordinary -- only that 'our country's criminal justice system [generally] ... is predicated on white supremacy and anti-Black racism' instead of what boo is saying, which is that the judge caused this courtroom to be biased. Sources aren't worth anything unless you support what you are saying and demonstrate how that substantiates your argument clearly. Having read and reread his post and his citations, boo delivers on neither.

The final thing that I'll say about the matter is that boo's response to being called out for making unsubstantiated claims isn't acknowledgement, but obfuscation and more poor rhetoric -- which only compounds his loss of credibility. In my post, I asked him to either show that he could back up the claim that the judge lied about MSNBC or to walk it back. That was the only topic of my post, but he didn't respond by addressing any of it; instead, he moved on to a bunch of other talking points about why he doesn't like the judge. If he was interested in maintaining credibility or having a productive discussion, he could have at least said "yeah, I guess I was wrong", "oh, I was misinformed", or linked some surprise supporting sources -- but instead he has ignored it, and tried to usher us on into new topics. So to bring this back to what you and DTC said:



Much counter-evidence has been leveled, even though boo brings weak or no evidence to begin with. Boo has made no effort to maintain his credibility, and I agree with DTC that that comes with a cost -- if you don't bring the substance, people are going to stop paying you their attention.
This insistence that I lack credibility because I made a mistake on a specific weapons charge is laughably absurd and demonstrative of the agenda you seek to advance. It takes an extremely dishonest person to suggest that I've misrepresented sources such as Amnesty when they are clearly condemning the court for the verdict. These are not actual refutations of the points that I've made, they are just repeated assertions that I lack credibility and/or honesty, and utilise "poor rhetoric." It's the sort of grandstanding that gets laughed out of debate halls. The closest thing you've actually made to a refutation is trying to split hairs over the judge's decision to "applaud veterans," a matter you acknowledge as still wrong for a jurist to do. =/

There's also the fascinating position that I am expected to provide mountains of evidence of the judge's intent despite having already pointed out his history of making wildly illegal judgments that are more rooted in his beliefs than any semblance of law. Especially fascinating considering that no one else in this discussion seems to have the same expectation made of them. There's also the obvious irony that a substantial amount of evidence was barred or actively sought to be discredited by Schroeder on an illegitimate basis. Although it's blatantly obvious you don't actually care about evidence, for the sake of posterity: Here he is mandating sex workers be tested for HIV. You know what words should never come from the bench? “I would like to see the issue resolved, and I hope they lose.” Here is a newspaper article detailing how Schroeder's reputation as an irrational jurist caused hundreds of defendants to file for a change in judge. Clearly Schroeder had a reputation prior to the case that was already comparable to Julius Hoffman's reputation. Here he is doling out public shaming as punishment, something which by itself should have been grounds to see him removed from the bench. Schroeder has made inappropriate complaints about coverage of the trial, and it is extremely unusual to bar an entire network over a traffic violation by a freelancer. It is obvious that Schroeder is a vindictive, incompetent jurist who demonstrated bias throughout the trial, going so far as to not only permit prejudicial language against the victims (none of the victims were on trial for rioting, nor looting, nor is there credible evidence suggesting that they were involved in either), but actively encourage a prejudicial framing of the case for the jury.

My position on Schroeder before the trial was that regardless of the verdict, he has severely impugned the reputation of the judiciary and should not be serving as a judge. Since the trial ended, I believe that position has a stronger case than ever. True to Republican fashion, what happened wasn't a miscarriage of justice, but an alleyway coat-hanger abortion. If expecting judges to be impartial and act within the law constitutes "zealotry," then call me the Grand fucking Inquisitor.
 
this kyle rittenhouse shit got boring the only useful discussions about the case are those which involve the surrounding politics not the trial itself
They are so very intertwined. I don't know how you intend to fully (or even partially) separate the two. In fact, understanding the happenings in detail is what would show you why this isn't giving you a pass to go on the street and shoot protesters / why you shouldn't get physically violent with anybody let alone somebody visibly carrying a firearm. But yeah, a full blown trial and it's specifics can be a drag for anyone, let alone people used to twitter style bite-sized politics.
 
why this isn't giving you a pass to go on the street and shoot protesters / why you shouldn't get physically violent with anybody let alone somebody visibly carrying a firearm.
Bringing an AR-15 to a protest filled with people you don’t like is violent. Claiming self-defense when they try to disarm said person bringing an AR-15 to a fistfight is 100% bitch made. Rittenhouse is pure trash.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
this kyle rittenhouse shit got boring the only useful discussions about the case are those which involve the surrounding politics not the trial itself
K if people are bored with Rittenhouse let's move onto the most important questions--

1) Is there any possible way, any possible thing the Dems could do to NOT massively lose both House and Senate next year?

2) Is Trump the 2024 Presidential favorite? (Opinion: Yes) What needs to happen to make a Dem 2024 win possible, and what concoction of drugs does it involve pumping into Joe Biden to make it happen b/c lets face it the other options are total trash?
 
Not a lawyer so I'm asking the Smogon lawyers (TM):

Is/was there not a way to charge Rittenhouse for something lighter than murder? The virgin leftist take is "he shouldn't have brought a gun to a volatile situation", but the chad hog response is "but his life was threatened." These two observations aren't incompatible. The excuse of self defence may or may not be reasonable here (the court ruled it was), but what is absolutely certain is that shots being fired is transparently inevitable at the point that you are bringing a gun to a riot.

Wasn't there a much better case for manslaughter/reckless endangerment etc? Is it really a function of our legal system that you have to go big or go home?
 
1) Is there any possible way, any possible thing the Dems could do to NOT massively lose both House and Senate next year?
No. 2022 is GOP flip on gerrymandering alone. It will either be a red wave or a red tsunami. The best case scenario for Dems is covid-19 and inflation die down by summer of 2022, Dem losses are kept to the red wave.

2) Is Trump the 2024 Presidential favorite? (Opinion: Yes) What needs to happen to make a Dem 2024 win possible, and what concoction of drugs does it involve pumping into Joe Biden to make it happen b/c lets face it the other options are total trash?
Absolutely not. There is a better chance of being struck by lightning than Trump winning in 2024. He has to evade criminal prosecution for another 3 years, successfully win a crowded GOP primary, and count on the 81 million people who already voted against him in 2020 to forget why they did so. Also, a significant number of his own 2020 voters will have died from complications of covid-19.


Not a lawyer so I'm asking the Smogon lawyers (TM):

Is/was there not a way to charge Rittenhouse for something lighter than murder? The virgin leftist take is "he shouldn't have brought a gun to a volatile situation", but the chad hog response is "but his life was threatened." These two observations aren't incompatible. The excuse of self defence may or may not be reasonable here (the court ruled it was), but what is absolutely certain is that shots being fired is transparently inevitable at the point that you are bringing a gun to a riot.

Wasn't there a much better case for manslaughter/reckless endangerment etc? Is it really a function of our legal system that you have to go big or go home?
I'm interested in hearing more about this as well. It seems like in high-profile cases, prosecutors frequently over-charge. Almost makes one think it is intentional...
 
Absolutely not. There is a better chance of being struck by lightning than Trump winning in 2024. He has to evade criminal prosecution for another 3 years, successfully win a crowded GOP primary, and count on the 81 million people who already voted against him in 2020 to forget why they did so. Also, a significant number of his own 2020 voters will have died from complications of covid-19.
lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him. Even if Bernie defies being too old and tries running, the Dems block him again and push forward someone wildly unpopular like Kamala and Pete, and Trump will run over them. Biden apparently expressed a desire to run in 24 but he's barely able to stay awake less then a year into this term.

Unless the GOP finds some fun new toy, it seems pretty dang likely Trump takes it.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
No. 2022 is GOP flip on gerrymandering alone. It will either be a red wave or a red tsunami. The best case scenario for Dems is covid-19 and inflation die down by summer of 2022, Dem losses are kept to the red wave.
:psycry::psycry::psycry: Lib tears. Conservatives can laugh if they want, but genuinely sad.

I do feel like Dems came THIS close to making some really great progressive changes-- and seeing basically all but TWO Democrats essentially line up for real positive changes did change my perception of what's possible in the party (even if many house Conservative Dems had to be dragged kicking-- My rep was one of them, but when I e-mailed him he even expressed genuine support for 3.5 Trillion).

Not that the Dems could become a non-corporate party or a working class party, but that with enough time and continued cultural change, it might be possible for the same professional elite liberal class that controls the Democrats to be convinced that at least substantive Keynsian/New Deal/Social Democratic reforms are genuinely needed for the future of the country, and the future of the economy that also serves their interests.

Certainly, I think the time under Biden has lead the average rich MSNBC-watching Democrat to develop a LOT more animosity towards Republicans/Conservatives of all stripes than the AoCs/Bernies of the world. Heck, if Sinema's TANKING poll numbers are any indicator—

it’s been refreshing to see some of the most Anti-Bernie voices of the primary get behind the 3.5 Trillion and blast Manchinema is all I’m saying. A GOP takeover undoes all the progress we barely made at all.

Absolutely not. There is a better chance of being struck by lightning than Trump winning in 2024. He has to evade criminal prosecution for another 3 years, successfully win a crowded GOP primary, and count on the 81 million people who already voted against him in 2020 to forget why they did so. Also, a significant number of his own 2020 voters will have died from complications of covid-19.
I hear you about the anti-vaxers dying off (and GOP voters genuinely being real old is a thing too), but I can’t seriously imagine Trump having trouble with legal issues or the primary.


lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him. Even if Bernie defies being too old and tries running, the Dems block him again and push forward someone wildly unpopular like Kamala and Pete, and Trump will run over them. Biden apparently expressed a desire to run in 24 but he's barely able to stay awake less then a year into this term.

Unless the GOP finds some fun new toy, it seems pretty dang likely Trump takes it.
Yeah, super awful but this is much closer to my impression of reality.

Also I don’t think Bernie could win against Trump 2024. Too old, too perceived as an insider now, and with two losses. Bernie’s done incredible work as our Chairman but he’s not a winning card in 2024 imo.

I really wish there was an obvious ideological successor that was viable, but I think the younger progressives are going to have to make more real policy (and election) wins on the books, and do less culture warring/more rainbow coalition building to become such a figure.

Kamala, Buttegieg, and frankly Michelle Obama imo would all get spanked by Trump.

I still see Biden as the best bet, and as mentioned previously have come to like him a lot more in office. Seriously wish Bernie and Biden were both 15 years younger, and had the gas in the tank to really have been the Eugene Debs and FDR this era needed.
 
Last edited:
lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him.
This is possibly one of the worst political takes in this whole thread. Biden as incumbent is already favored over a generic GOP candidate simply because it is difficult to overcome the structural and psychological advantages of incumbency. Let’s review the facts:

1) Biden’s team has expressed that he is running in 2024 and has vehemently denied all rumors suggesting otherwise.

2) Donald Trump is a historically bad Presidential candidate. He carried the lowest approval ratings into both elections and is one of just 3 incumbents to lose re-election in the last 100 years. He is literally the worst choice for Republicans to nominate to unseat a Democratic incumbent.

3) Donald Trump is currently mired in criminal investigations. They are more likely to escalate further should he run again.

4) Based on #2 and #3, it’s foolish to think in another two years Trump is “lock” for what will be a wide open GOP primary. Americans (including Republicans) generally do not support losers and that is all Trump did for the Republican Party from 2017 all the way up to losing two lay up Senate elections Jan 2021 in Georgia (a “red state” that hasn’t been competitive in decades).

It’s fascinating to see people still clinging to the Trump is a political juggernaut narrative five years later despite all evidence showing the contrary.


Kamala, Buttegieg, and frankly Michelle Obama imo would all get spanked by Trump.
Let’s give this a rest.

I’ll at least give Trump credit for turning a lot of political observers into believers of his own hype.
 
Last edited:
lol. lmao.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed Trump, but saying another Trump term is as likely as being hit by lightning is just... lmao

Trump is almost definitely the nominee and I have no idea what Dem has a good chance of winning against him. Even if Bernie defies being too old and tries running, the Dems block him again and push forward someone wildly unpopular like Kamala and Pete, and Trump will run over them. Biden apparently expressed a desire to run in 24 but he's barely able to stay awake less then a year into this term.

Unless the GOP finds some fun new toy, it seems pretty dang likely Trump takes it.
Although I don't think a Trump victory is impossible, there are a few things going against him. One, he was banned from Twitter, which limits his reach outside of his echo chamber. Two, he has been proven to be toxic to performance in the suburbs, which is likely where the 2024 election will be won. Three, he has lost the popular vote twice, and the demographics in most states aren't getting any friendlier to him. Finally, the memory of the Capitol riots remains, and while that won't turn off his hardcore fans it will turn off enough people to prevent the razor-thin margins that Trump needs to win by. Trump would probably win the Republican nomination, even if he has criminal charges because the Republican Party is that fucked up at this point. But the Democrats would have to be extremely hated by 2024, possibly even more than Hillary Clinton was, for Trump to have a decent shot at the presidency again. For now, we should be focusing on the midterms - since West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio are likely flipping in 2024, the Democrats need to flip three seats in 2022 if they want to hold the Senate.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
1) Biden’s team has expressed that he is running in 2024 and has vehemently denied all rumors suggesting otherwise.
Thank God-- and yet despite that clear proclamation to run again, doubt continues to proliferate because my man keeps falling asleep at the steering wheel.

Even amongst Democratic leaders/insiders, during the 2020 primary and now, Joe’s ability (for this purpose fundamentally regarding age) has continuously been under doubt.

Otherwise media mainstream nor indie would be horse-race Jockeying about the alternatives. That said, it’s got to be Joe because yeah we definitely need that incumbency advantage to be in it.
2) Donald Trump is a historically bad Presidential candidate. He carried the lowest approval ratings into both elections and is one of just 3 incumbents to lose re-election in the last 100 years. He is literally the worst choice for Republicans to nominate to unseat a Democratic incumbent.
Except that he got more votes than any candidate except 2020 Joe Biden, and I think the incumbency means less imo when the majority of Republicans believe the insanity that Trump was robbed of victory previously.

Let’s give this a rest.

I’ll at least give Trump credit for turning a lot of political observers into believers of his own hype.
It’s not so much about Trump being great as Democrats and traditional Republicans being weak.

Kamala is uniquely unpopular as a VP— the left dislikes her, the right hates her,even Joe Biden’s team has zero faith in her and tries to keep herout of important stuff.

Joe Biden deserved the great poll numbers he had early, and would have become imo the most popular modern President ever if Dems had just lined up to get shit done— if his own party had backed him up on Afghanistan and everyone lined up to pass Infra+3.5BBB but here we are with Biden’s tail-spinning poll numbers.
(I love Democracy, but bleh people are dumb. Biden is based)

Whether 2016, 2020, or 2024 the question with Trump is always about whether the establishment powers manage to fuck things up tripping on their own shoe laces.


Although I don't think a Trump victory is impossible, there are a few things going against him. One, he was banned from Twitter, which limits his reach outside of his echo chamber. Two, he has been proven to be toxic to performance in the suburbs, which is likely where the 2024 election will be won. Three, he has lost the popular vote twice, and the demographics in most states aren't getting any friendlier to him. Finally, the memory of the Capitol riots remains, and while that won't turn off his hardcore fans it will turn off enough people to prevent the razor-thin margins that Trump needs to win by. Trump would probably win the Republican nomination, even if he has criminal charges because the Republican Party is that fucked up at this point. But the Democrats would have to be extremely hated by 2024, possibly even more than Hillary Clinton was, for Trump to have a decent shot at the presidency again. For now, we should be focusing on the midterms - since West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio are likely flipping in 2024, the Democrats need to flip three seats in 2022 if they want to hold the Senate.
All real good points; the Twitter thing especially. Suburbs and Jan 6 effect matter a lot too.

And yeah it would be better to not give up on the mid terms yet. The biggest risk to 2024 is complete Legislative failure and impediment to Executive 2022-2024.
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

Never bet against the pikachu
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Not a lawyer so I'm asking the Smogon lawyers (TM):

Is/was there not a way to charge Rittenhouse for something lighter than murder? The virgin leftist take is "he shouldn't have brought a gun to a volatile situation", but the chad hog response is "but his life was threatened." These two observations aren't incompatible. The excuse of self defence may or may not be reasonable here (the court ruled it was), but what is absolutely certain is that shots being fired is transparently inevitable at the point that you are bringing a gun to a riot.

Wasn't there a much better case for manslaughter/reckless endangerment etc? Is it really a function of our legal system that you have to go big or go home?
I don't think so. Wisconsin does not officially have a "manslaughter" charge; they call that 2nd degree "reckless homicide".
Note that the lowest rittenhouse was charged with for the killings was 1st degree reckless homicide. He was also charged with 1st degree intentional.
First-degree intentional homicide.
(1)  Offenses.
(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.

940.01(2) (2)  Mitigating circumstances. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05:
940.01(2)(b) (b) Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.
2nd degree reckless homicide is functionally equivalent to other state's "manslaughter" charges. But the only difference between it and 1st degree reckless homicide is that 1st degree reckless requires "utter disregard for human life". The defense's statement (self defense) was going to be exactly the same either way, whether the prosecution could prove disregard for human life or not. Perhaps there was more leeway in charging with 2nd degree reckless, but the discussion in the courtroom seemed 100% focused on whether the self-defense was legitimate or not, rather than whether rittenhouse behaved with "utter disregard for human life". If the defense thought they could win by disqualifying that angle, they'd probably have spoken up about it more.


Rittenhouse was actually charged with reckless endangerment as well. Which also was deemed not guilty by the jury.

So I don't think there would be much "value" in aiming for a lesser charge because the defense would have been exactly the same. And the verdict would have likely been the exact same as well
 
Last edited:
Whether 2016, 2020, or 2024 the question with Trump is always about whether the establishment powers manage to fuck things up tripping on their own shoe laces.
I think it's amazing and speaks to the poverty of American political discourse that the former President of the United States and certain Republican presidential nominee is not considered part of "the establishment." It's like how forcing the inclusion of extremists' agendas makes one a "moderate," "free speech" means federal or state governments telling universities who they have to host, or book burnings are held because GOP activists are "concerned about race."
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think it's amazing and speaks to the poverty of American political discourse that the former President of the United States and certain Republican presidential nominee is not considered part of "the establishment." It's like how forcing the inclusion of extremists' agendas makes one a "moderate," "free speech" means federal or state governments telling universities who they have to host, or book burnings are held because GOP activists are "concerned about race."
Under one lens you can easily call Trump a part of the elite-- class, family history, right-wing alignment, etc.-- but when people make comments phrasing him outside of it, it's just accounting for the real fact that whether you were at the Chamber of Commerce, or on Wall Street, or in the military/intelligence complex, or speaking with high ranking GOP officials, there is a real category of "old power" that does find him abhorrent or at least extremely inconvenient for speaking the quiet parts of hegemony out loud.

Usable sure, but definitely undesireable up to the point where the alternative is an actual Social Democrat or further left alternative critiquing power.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 2)

Top