metalslug

This quoted media statement, as I wrote it, is indeed true; “We have come to a dangerous line,” Putin told the Valdai discussion club in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a day after learning that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election." Putin did say that during the indicated timing although I will concede that the sentiment of "dangerous" cannot exclusively be tied to animosity against Trump and I'll further concede that the term "liberal" was indeed used in an earlier part of that speech. It has long been a favourite accusation from the left that Trump and Putin are "thick as thieves", conspiring in elections and laptops and whatever other scare narrative might hit home when there was in truth much more actual evidence, and subsequent FEC fines, that Democrats were conspiring with Russian sources. It's also true that for Trump to meet his election promise of "ending the war" will inevitably mean that Putin gets a win, although with the alternative being a never-ending river of US money pouring into that war, Trump appears to be seeking a pragmatic outcome to a war that started on Biden's watch. I don't hear the left railing against Europe and rest of NATO for not throwing their own billions into that war. It's more convenient to blame your domestic political enemy.

?? If she was intent on pardoning all of them and had not expressly stated (either personally or via a spokesperson) that such a commission would exist then I should indeed assume there's no commission at all, which is not what Trumps's team said regarding their intended process. Beyond that; the strawman scope of pardons that you describe above would go down so well with the electorate majority so as to ensure Republican victories for the next 20 years or more. I doubt she would gift them that circumstance.

Perhaps the same standard presented to jurors who convicted people of colour in the Southern states? Would that work for you? This from the guy who, in that very same thread, affirmed this statement three times; "Convincing people that reality is not what it is does mean that you have changed reality into what you say it is." And you wonder why I lose interest in your debates.

Deserved "on balance of probability". Where and how do you suppose I could check the minutia of those cases in any way more thoroughly than the team appointed to do so (for purposes of pardon)? ...by rather deferring to the word of The Right Hon. Lord jakee who has a demonstrated history of bullshit here? I'll offer a concession; some of the events of Jan 6 were captured clearly on camera of specific individuals assaulting security officers and/or vandalising property as a matter of public record, with no plausible mitigating circumstances. If he pardons one of them, I'll assert my objection to it.

I believe there is already some discussion along those lines starting here about emboldened conservatives since the election...

We're back to subjective argument here. Yes, I will decide that as opinion on balance of probability, as we both may decide that Southern states had similar cases or that you may decide that "CRT is right".

I would not know that any more than you do since we don't have access to the case files nor necessarily the knowledge of law to properly evaluate them. But; I'm prepared to go on faith for now that legal scholars perusing "on a case-by-case basis", as stated by the spokesperson, will find some. The scope of CRT makes many more claims than merely the bias application and interpretation of Southern state laws. To claim that "CRT is right" is about as valid as the US election outcome vindicating every single republican policy. Arguments that we either both lose or both win.

?? How a justice system subjectively acts against people has very little to do with how strong the evidence in a case is. By "people" above I had specifically intended to refer to the group of Jan 6 protestors, some of whom absolutely had strong cases against them and should not be pardoned. For those with weaker evidence, as with cases in Southern states having weak evidence; I'm not losing sleep over those pardons.

What part of this are you still missing? " I'm fine if he pardoned any convictions that had weak cases."

That's fair comment and I should probably be less flippant in my own comments regarding this. I've been on-and-off these forums for almost 20 years and had a fondness for them for at least 10 of those, until I stopped jumping, and then SC largely for its' comedic value. Agreed there's a wealth of genuinely good skydiving information here that would be a shame to lose.

No that's not what I said. I don't believe partisan bias can make a legal case weak but rather only impacts whether a judge or jury requires a strong case to convict. I have no doubt such bias has occurred in those Southern states but whataboutism doesn't make it right.

Actually it did, unless you're not comparing your question to mine. My concern was with the zealous application of laws (on poor evidence) by a judiciary and jury pool in deep blue DC. I have no problem with the laws themselves. In that regard it was asked and answered; " I'm fine if he pardoned any convictions that had weak cases." Now; if you'd like to debate the laws themselves then there are a few previous (dead horse) SC threads about that for you to peruse. There's a new DA in Los Angeles who has vowed to be tougher on crime there (which is not the same as weak cases). No doubt that he will be called a racist by the left for vowing that, if not already has been.

This is my point too. If SC is the most active forum then why save dropzone.com ? Is it the hosting platform that's useful or the domain name? Would SC members rename it democratzone.com and drop all the other forums?

There's at least one liberal here who believes that the most interest to buy and 'save' DZ.com can be found in this SC forum which doesn't even discuss skydiving; a rather loud cry to preserve a political echo chamber. And, if he's correct and the forum is indeed saved.by SC members then I can bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll still be here like furniture. Where else will you find a community that gives 'likes' to your comments? If it doesn't work out then there will nearly always be clouds you could shout at.

Do you regard this as a Speakers Corner topic?