Opt-out
3d ago
I am not aware of the SC ever taking on a criminal conviction with exceptions only being when the law convicted under was unconstitutional.
In the very specific case of Floyd the entire jury had implicit death threats. Jurors also though tend to be low IQ. I assume you also think OJ was innocent.
Opt-out
3d ago
Polling shows 80% of Republicans believe he’s innocent. I don’t love public polling for accuracy but it’s easy to find surveys like that from 2021. I think you’re not in touch with this market.
And there is sort of a problem that he’s actually INNOCENT. Negligence could be debatable that he mistreated an OD.
Opt-out
3d ago
His views are representative of the right. Which is why I say in Texas that even if say a leftist Austin jury found him guilty that he would be pardoned in a right controlled state like Texas.
“Chauvin’s innocent in court is a legal one not a culture one”
Sure I agree. I am just pointing out in different legal jurisdiction with different cultures he would be innocent.
Also not an unbiased jury. Jurors have biases based on their culture. In this case hang whitey was their culture.
Opt-out
3d ago
There is an interesting question here on whether he should just get his damages plus a nice reward or they should get outsized rewards because it’s difficult to challenge every small abuse so outsize rewards are good to discourage abuse
Opt-out
3d ago
FWIW. Still other views on Floyd in the right-wing. Funny I believe that guys an Israeli, but everyone everywhere knows American culture war.
https://x.com/aryehazan/status/2057393196619948353?s=46
The coroners report is in the thread.
I don’t necessarily think it’s fair for me to bring up Floyd to you initial comment on the person probably just being guilty, but it’s high profile so far more familiar with that case. The more partisan/culture war a case is the less likely it is going to fit into your the system works on mundane cases.
Think you are lacking experience living in red states and blue states. The loud people in blue states are blue. The loud people in red states are red. With gerrymandering and other means of asserting authority all the political power shifts farther to one side. Judges, prosecutors, etc all shift to one side.
I thought peremptory challenges actually shift the bias farther in one direction. The cities are even more partisan so maybe it’s 75%-25% Dem/GOP. The prosecution can axe any likely republicans while the defense runs out of challenges long before.
You also have to remember at the time Chauvin trial occurred it was very clear that NOT GUILTY = burn the fucking city down. This is not in play for most other trials but in this specific trial it was lose your house or vote guilty.
Also you should almost never cite public opinion polling in any debate. It’s highly unreliable and can be gamed. Took me 2 minutes checking polling and I found 31% of GOP thought he was guilty.
Opt-out
3d ago
Anything that is a scissor statement between parties becomes popular with the other party.
I love Chauvin. He’s the innocent guy the left hung because of their cultish ideology.
Opt-out
4d ago
A GOP governor who didn’t pardon him IMO would likely get primaried. It would be worth it to me. Abbott pardoned a far more guilty guy in Daniel Perry. History seems to strongly point towards a pardon.
Opt-out
4d ago
45% of Republicans find him innocent. Which means he absolutely would be innocent in Texas. And it’s likely a much higher rate of not guilty in Republicans who watched the entire 30 minute police interaction who know he did things like saying he couldn’t breathe BEFORE any force was applied or who read the entire medical report and know he had a potentially fatal does of fentanyl in his system. It’s probably close to 95% or even 100% of Republicans who find him innocent.
Like your own study completely supports my position. The 45% of GOP who find him innocent are likely the far more online and active Republicans. The exact people that would heavily pressure a Republican governor to pardon him.
Opt-out
4d ago
I 100% mean if their is a scissor statement it’s more likely to get pardoned if your in the correct state.
Do you seriously disagree that the results of Chauvins guilt/innocent would not be different in Texas or other red state (same evidence/same event/etc). I 100% think he’s completely innocent. Even if say it occurred in Austin and he got convicted Gov Abbot would have had a ton of pressure to pardon him.
Opt-out
4d ago
I somewhat agree. But do governors routinely pardon normal cases that fail to get into the news cycle usually because there is a scissor statement involved?
Political cases which I would consider Chauvin the gold standard literally have different results depending on what state it occurs in. In Texas I would say with 80% probability he would not have been charged. Likely another 80% if he was charged he would win at trial. And probably a 100% chance the go vet or would pardon him. Obviously different results in Minnesota.
I believe I have much different views on the system of guilt/innocent 20 years ago than I would today. It very much depends on where you are charged.
Opt-out
4d ago
People say this a lot. But I don’t see it. I can’t tell who’s doing wishful thinking. It looks to me like he’s in his prime. And a lot of people want to say he’s declining because they want him out of politics. Regardless MAGA isn’t one man anymore. A team has formed around him and he has lots of kids.
Opt-out
5d ago
You need a 100% voting block to make that work. Which we don’t have.
Mamdani seems like third world leftists. He’s not Latam but seems connected to same type.
Opt-out
5d ago
I don’t care about popularity. I only believe in Democracy in western nations. Demographically we are more like LATAM now. That region is better off with military dictatorships with a revolving door of Rubios in charge. The left is like LATAM left now with Mamdani types.
Opt-out
5d ago
There is a good chance he lives close to 100. He’s never drank etc. Also he stays fairly active like Buffet or Munger (probably solid lifestyle comps). 20 more years is not unreasonable.
Opt-out
5d ago
I don’t know why people would assume Dems will be in power again under the adversarial format.
-
Dems haven’t nominated a legitimate candidate for POTUS since I guess Hillary. The current crop are not good candidates. Dems are highly unpopular.
-
I don’t have any faith we can transition power again and probably should be looking for options not to. You can’t turn the country over to Mamdanis or Karen Bass. They are foreign agents. Complete aliens to me.
Win in 2028 because of next incompetent Dem candidate. If it comes to it do the coup.
I still don’t understand why people say Trump can’t run again. He can just nominate his sons or Vance and essentially still be in power. He’s going to be at the White House daily under any of those administrations. He’s not leaving.
Opt-out
6d ago
I think at this point most Americans just think government money is fake. And the commons have been shat on so might as well get some for your side. Along with long-term benefits for your side of building patronage networks.
Opt-out
6d ago
Actually meant to reply above you. But I do think some of the let Trump do these things come from accelerationists type views.
Opt-out
6d ago
I believe you are making an accelerationists argument. The issue is the right believes this is only the second move in the process. Tat was already played the last decade in their view. So playing tit is now necessary. If your going to threaten acceleration for a perceived past wrong then you still need to punish in the second round.
These things are all fairly bad but before you go to a new equilibrium you needed to follow thru with your vengeance.
Opt-out
10d ago
Ok then how would you fix black violence? It’s easy to throw shade but what’s your solution?
Do you really think the 2nd Amendment though is assuming they have the support of a state-level army? And it’s not a need to do it themselves?
I believe the words are fairly clear in the amendment. Though current jurisprudence does not give them access to even machine guns. I think the amendment is fairly clear that preserving liberty necessitates the civilian population can do state level violence.
But to be honest I think the enemy the 2a has in mind is DC. The only argument I see for excluding that part of 2A is an argument that the Civil War was some kind of common law precedence refuting that right. But they never codified it.
Median Voter doesn’t read it, but the GOP complaint I believe is a legitimate issue with the modern Democratic Party. Doing it thru some white paper is kind of dumb but there are issues leadership needs to figure out. They can not find candidates to run at the national level. Top candidates tend to come from white men who do not feel welcomed within the Dem Party. ADOS has too few 99% wordcells to go thru a national campaign. Barack obviously was not ADOS and half white. DEI basically excludes the few white men in the party from climbing now. Biden made it because he was Obamas VP. A 25 year old Biden would never even enter that side of the aisle now.
Jewish men still exists in the Party. Shapiro could do it. Ossof being in Georgia would have a chance. But since the Israel-Palestine thing I am not sure that a Jew could make it thru a primary. The best Dem politicians do tend to come from red states. That leaves them looking for a Thatcher with the current party gender imbalance. Kamala Harris type pipelines are probably going to have issues on the national stage due to IQ. AOC I think is perfectly fine in congress, but my gut says she is IQ limited for the top office.
I don’t want to do a full debate on HBD but it does seem like the extreme right tail on most traits are dominated by white men. At the national level of politics when you are on tv a lot more the competence ability is much more noticeable. So hitting DEI quoatas makes national level politics very hard. Besides the electoral college and gerrymandering favoring team red I also think they have a structural talent issue for the top spot.
What could change? Indians have a lot of far right tail talent so that’s a possibility. The top law schools are extremely left so perhaps in a generation that produces candidates.
I guess it’s my opinion but at the very top of the parties I think team right has structurally better talent. Vance may be a little weird and may limit him later but I do think he’s quite smart. Same thing with Rubio or Cruz. I think if you list the top 5 most likely candidates on each side that the GOP guy is likely 1 standard deviation higher in intelligence.
I think Newsome said he had like a 960 IQ. I don’t believe that so perhaps he’s actually much smarter and just pretends to be stupid like Bush.
More options
Context Copy link