No, this is what endless bureaucracy gets you. Due process is a trial, appeal, hanging, likely all within a year. Bureaucracy is endless appeals for decades, millions of dollars and multiple “experts” lying through their teeth so more bureaucrats can profit off tax dollars.
Edit: yo, sorry smith, I didn’t mean to write you a book lol
“Conflict of interest” isn’t a thing anymore. All a person has to do is say “I don’t have a conflict of interest”, and then the matter is settled. I mean why would they lie? What would be their motivation? A conflict of interests? But they don’t have a conflict of interests! They just said so!
You see this shit everywhere now. We’re meant to trust the promissory words of people who have every incentive imaginable to feign innocence or ignorance. It’s really a demonic perversion of “trust but verify”. We have been manipulated into demanding outrageously high standards of evidence for proof wrongdoing. Used to be “the appearance of impropriety is impropriety”. We correctly understood that people in compromised positions have every reason to lie. Now? The liars have convinced everyone that trust should be the default - especially when the liars know that “verification” is impossible.
For some segments of the population, nothing short of a notarized written confession will be accepted as proof of malicious intent. For such people, a guilty verdict is contingent upon evidence that frankly cannot exist; even the most retarded criminal is usually smart enough (or illiterate enough) not to write down their motivations. So no one ever really does anything with ill intent - provided they are a member of your preferred demographic groups, of course.
And that’s the rub, isn’t it? These impossibly high standards for evidence are always selectively deployed based on the politics and cultures involved. Every black-on-white murder magically isn’t racially motivated because there always exists some deniability, no matter how comically implausible. It’s to the point where even a confession of racial hatred is somehow not sufficient to prove racial motivation, which just goes to show that it’s nothing to do with evidence.
On the flip side, white-on-black violence is always reliably framed as racially motivated when there is usually no evidence backing it up, and this still happens even in cases where the violence is clearly motivated by non-racial factors e.g. he was literally shooting at the cops.
One of my biggest problems with Floyd and for which I was insulted over repeatedly was that their was zero evidence of a racial motivation. Even if you believe Chauvin was responsible they didn't demonstrate a racial motivation but it was called a racial killing
Exactly and the media was chomping at the bit to talk about race. I angered some black ppl by saying it’s embarrassing that we make such a fuss for criminals.
honestly, this is starting to become BLM-level "silence is violence" bullshit. both of these politicians represent Kentucky, which is not North Carolina where the attack happened.
on the contrary, the drone strike happened in international waters carried out by the US military, which makes it a federal action. both of these politicians are part of the federal government, so it is right for them to have a say in it (even though Rand Paul is wrong).
According to you pirates in international waters are supposed to get due process, and cluster munitions are extra special illegal, all because CNN told you so.
You don't have a fuckin clue about how things work outside of Eurocucklandia, so you really ought to keep your mouth shut.
According to you pirates in international waters are supposed to get due process
According to me, you can't just brand a boat a pirate boat and destroy it, just like you can't brand someone a 'terrorist' and drone him.
and cluster munitions are extra special illegal
Under treaties, well yes, they are. It's interesting how much of a neocon you are, contrary to your pretenses. You are also very anti-Iran.
all because CNN told you so.
I don't watch television.
You don't have a fuckin clue about how things work outside of Eurocucklandia,
Well, recently, it turned out that I know your country's constitution better than you do, so I guess that's one point for Eurocucklandia over Fentanylville.
Yes you actually can do exactly that. You don't even have to tell them to heave to and explain themselves. You're allowed to sink boats approaching your territory at high speed.
Under treaties
That no one involved actually signed. You already got embarrassed over this, but we can go over it again if you want.
anti Iran
Are they muslims? Then I'm anti them. You'll find I consistently deride non Christians, if you actually bothered reading.
And if you claim you don't watch television, I don't believe you. Because every dumbass take I've ever seen you make has been straight off the tv.
Yes you actually can do exactly that. You don't even have to tell them to heave to and explain themselves. You're allowed to sink boats approaching your territory at high speed.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't nowhere near even American territorial waters, it wasn't headed for them, let alone 'headed for American territory'.
So no, you most certainly aren't allowed to do that.
That no one involved actually signed.
You were talking about their illegality under international law, period.
Are they muslims? Then I'm anti them. You'll find I consistently deride non Christians
And warmonger for neocons.
And if you claim you don't watch television, I don't believe you. Because every dumbass take I've ever seen you make has been straight off the tv.
I guess you're a faithful watcher of television yourself.
Actually we can declare them drug smugglers and strike them because we're America. Even if they were just illegals I'd support it though. I've seen what happened to Europe
You can't, insofar as there is any 'law' to speak of in the US. But it figures that you support extrajudicial murder of American citizens by means of drones as well.
Terrible logic. Soros spent 30+ billion dollars promoting these policies over his lifetime. Is your assertion that his money had little effect? Because he’s the ultra wealthy globalist super villain funding all of these local campaigns. I’m going to assume he knows what he’s doing and is getting proper return on his massive investment.
Terrible logic. Soros spent 30+ billion dollars promoting these policies over his lifetime. Is your assertion that his money had little effect?
Very little of that was spent on "Soros DAs". Soft on crime predated Soros DAs by a long shot. So yes, whatever effect the funding of Soros DAs had is limited. Soros did not create this problem, he exacerbated it.
None of this has anything to do with due process. Due Process stops the government from wantonly taking away your rights and liberties without being properly tried and convicted.
The guy had his due process, was found guilty and then the guvmint let him go anyway because prison doesn’t help the poor black murderer or something…
"Due process" is one of many phrases that their side warps and transforms the meaning of, when they say it they mean "a stalling tactic intended to waste as much time as possible and we look like we have moral superiority if you work against us".
No, this is what endless bureaucracy gets you. Due process is a trial, appeal, hanging, likely all within a year. Bureaucracy is endless appeals for decades, millions of dollars and multiple “experts” lying through their teeth so more bureaucrats can profit off tax dollars.
And the judge isnt even trained in law
Right it's a magistrate without a degree, so even the creditialists can't say shit
don't insult bums like that, i think a random one off the street would do a better job.
How nobody called that out as conflict of interest is mind boggling. Well I guess I shouldn’t be surprised
Who's going to call it out? Everyone in the government is all in on it
Good point
Edit: yo, sorry smith, I didn’t mean to write you a book lol
“Conflict of interest” isn’t a thing anymore. All a person has to do is say “I don’t have a conflict of interest”, and then the matter is settled. I mean why would they lie? What would be their motivation? A conflict of interests? But they don’t have a conflict of interests! They just said so!
You see this shit everywhere now. We’re meant to trust the promissory words of people who have every incentive imaginable to feign innocence or ignorance. It’s really a demonic perversion of “trust but verify”. We have been manipulated into demanding outrageously high standards of evidence for proof wrongdoing. Used to be “the appearance of impropriety is impropriety”. We correctly understood that people in compromised positions have every reason to lie. Now? The liars have convinced everyone that trust should be the default - especially when the liars know that “verification” is impossible.
For some segments of the population, nothing short of a notarized written confession will be accepted as proof of malicious intent. For such people, a guilty verdict is contingent upon evidence that frankly cannot exist; even the most retarded criminal is usually smart enough (or illiterate enough) not to write down their motivations. So no one ever really does anything with ill intent - provided they are a member of your preferred demographic groups, of course.
And that’s the rub, isn’t it? These impossibly high standards for evidence are always selectively deployed based on the politics and cultures involved. Every black-on-white murder magically isn’t racially motivated because there always exists some deniability, no matter how comically implausible. It’s to the point where even a confession of racial hatred is somehow not sufficient to prove racial motivation, which just goes to show that it’s nothing to do with evidence.
On the flip side, white-on-black violence is always reliably framed as racially motivated when there is usually no evidence backing it up, and this still happens even in cases where the violence is clearly motivated by non-racial factors e.g. he was literally shooting at the cops.
That’s true. They jumped to a racial narrative with Floyd despite zero evidence.
One of my biggest problems with Floyd and for which I was insulted over repeatedly was that their was zero evidence of a racial motivation. Even if you believe Chauvin was responsible they didn't demonstrate a racial motivation but it was called a racial killing
Exactly and the media was chomping at the bit to talk about race. I angered some black ppl by saying it’s embarrassing that we make such a fuss for criminals.
Women like this are tyrants in court rooms. The state should have been handling it but they don't give a fuck
They don’t even have to be “admitted”, they simply need to be signed up for classes and the state will pay for them to not show up.
honestly, this is starting to become BLM-level "silence is violence" bullshit. both of these politicians represent Kentucky, which is not North Carolina where the attack happened.
Then they should shut the fuck up about President Trump bombing useless fucking subhuman drug traffickers.
By that logic, neither is the drone strike area
on the contrary, the drone strike happened in international waters carried out by the US military, which makes it a federal action. both of these politicians are part of the federal government, so it is right for them to have a say in it (even though Rand Paul is wrong).
Rand is a lolbert and a useless shitbag. Massie I'm more surprised about.
Start holding judges and Das responsible for this shit and it ends overnight.
I'm so tired of the libertarians in Congress obsessed with punching right and being beautiful losers.
Get them the fuck out.
Are due process violations 'right-wing'?
Yes, get out the only guy who stood up to Trump on bombing Iran and who is trying to get the Epstein Files released.
According to you pirates in international waters are supposed to get due process, and cluster munitions are extra special illegal, all because CNN told you so.
You don't have a fuckin clue about how things work outside of Eurocucklandia, so you really ought to keep your mouth shut.
According to me, you can't just brand a boat a pirate boat and destroy it, just like you can't brand someone a 'terrorist' and drone him.
Under treaties, well yes, they are. It's interesting how much of a neocon you are, contrary to your pretenses. You are also very anti-Iran.
I don't watch television.
Well, recently, it turned out that I know your country's constitution better than you do, so I guess that's one point for Eurocucklandia over Fentanylville.
Yes you actually can do exactly that. You don't even have to tell them to heave to and explain themselves. You're allowed to sink boats approaching your territory at high speed.
That no one involved actually signed. You already got embarrassed over this, but we can go over it again if you want.
Are they muslims? Then I'm anti them. You'll find I consistently deride non Christians, if you actually bothered reading.
And if you claim you don't watch television, I don't believe you. Because every dumbass take I've ever seen you make has been straight off the tv.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't nowhere near even American territorial waters, it wasn't headed for them, let alone 'headed for American territory'.
So no, you most certainly aren't allowed to do that.
You were talking about their illegality under international law, period.
And warmonger for neocons.
I guess you're a faithful watcher of television yourself.
Actually we can declare them drug smugglers and strike them because we're America. Even if they were just illegals I'd support it though. I've seen what happened to Europe
Weird how you can though under us law.
Makes your last point even more of a clown show. If we wanted eurotrash opinions, we'd go to reddit.
You can't, insofar as there is any 'law' to speak of in the US. But it figures that you support extrajudicial murder of American citizens by means of drones as well.
Yes, I do support killing terrorists and criminals.
It's not a surprise you don't.
The same faggot who cried about bombing drug dealers is silent about white women getting murdered by niggers.
But we know you and your kind love that
Soros DAs caused this.
Everyone who votes for a soros DA should watch the full video first
Partly true, but this was going on long before there was any Soros DA. Soft on crime has been yielding the same result for decades.
Terrible logic. Soros spent 30+ billion dollars promoting these policies over his lifetime. Is your assertion that his money had little effect? Because he’s the ultra wealthy globalist super villain funding all of these local campaigns. I’m going to assume he knows what he’s doing and is getting proper return on his massive investment.
Very little of that was spent on "Soros DAs". Soft on crime predated Soros DAs by a long shot. So yes, whatever effect the funding of Soros DAs had is limited. Soros did not create this problem, he exacerbated it.
I dont know why yall get so put out when people point out that an issue is a bigger problem than yalls narrow view
But did they read to kill a mockingbird
Because they sometimes oppose Trump's foreign policy.
https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/19Ae8XLQQK/trump-strikes-houthis-in-defense/c
None of this has anything to do with due process. Due Process stops the government from wantonly taking away your rights and liberties without being properly tried and convicted.
The guy had his due process, was found guilty and then the guvmint let him go anyway because prison doesn’t help the poor black murderer or something…
Any thoughts from the jig judge who treats her job like a race grift?
No.
Due process worked perfectly fine when it was enacted. So what changed?
America became a nation run by lawyers
The people. The people operating and living under the system changed.
"Due process" is one of many phrases that their side warps and transforms the meaning of, when they say it they mean "a stalling tactic intended to waste as much time as possible and we look like we have moral superiority if you work against us".
No that's what judicial misconduct gets you.