US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[BernardLanguillier]

So I think the Ohio Chief Justice is out of order.  They're not immune to charges of wrong beliefs just like everyone else.  We live in a democracy where freedom of speech is appropriate. I have a right to accuse justices of bias or wrongheadedness if I think so.

Alan,

Considering your great call for democracy, I am sure you'll agree with me that the Republican decision to limit ballots to one per county in Florida was highly undemocratic in nature since it's designed to prevent valid voters from voting. Which is clearly against the constitution.

Do you agree?

Because if you agree that will mean that the judge, simply by applying the law, was right.

Why on earth would you think that a judge who applies the constitution in a fair way is valid target for partisan criticism? Do you see the constitution as a matter of partisan debate?

Have you forgotten the basic principle of separation of powers by which political man don't attempt to influence the juridicial system? It's one of the pillars of democracy.

If I were you I would fill an official complain to the Republican party because such undemocratic practices are just a total shame and a clear violation of the US democratic ideal as well as of the constitution. This is the kind of things people do in banana republics. The kind of things that calls for the dispatch of UN observers to ensure that an election is done without cheating.

Cheers,
Bernard

[faberryman]

Is this "art of the deal" stuff? Asking the pharmaceutical companies to send $100 cash cards to millions of seniors? It certainly did not work.

A Deal on Drug Prices  Undone by White House Insistence on ‘Trump Cards’

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/politics/trump-drug-prices.html

Sorry if you can't read the story.

[Alan Klein]

And Science Magazine, the 175 year old publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has joined Scientific American in condemning Trump and endorsing Biden. This is one of the most respected scientific journals in the world and they have never done this sort of thing before. Oh wait--must be a liberal plot.

The magazine and organizations and the scientists they represent will get more funding from the government if Biden is president.  If you want to understand what's happening, just follow the money.

[BernardLanguillier]

The magazine and organizations and the scientists they represent will get more funding from the government if Biden is president.  If you want to understand what's happening, just follow the money.

If you are correct, it means that Trump is the Republican president with the lowest ever support for research since the previous Republican president have never triggered such reactions.

But you know full well that your interpretation isn't correct right?

If this were their motivation why would they have not stated it as the main cause for their decision? Many people do complain openly about budget cuts for research. There were research cuts before at various times in the history of the US.

Instead, they have clearly stated that their main motivation is that they think that Trump's denial of science is bad for the country. Their move is a patriotic one. They are doing what is good for the US, and therefore for you.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

Considering your great call for democracy, I am sure you'll agree with me that the Republican decision to limit ballots to one per county in Florida was highly undemocratic in nature since it's designed to prevent valid voters from voting. Which is clearly against the constitution.

Do you agree?

Because if you agree that will mean that the judge, simply by applying the law, was right.

Why on earth would you think that a judge who applies the constitution in a fair way is valid target for partisan criticism?

Have you forgotten the basic principle of separation of powers by which political man don't attempt to influence the juridicial system? It's one of the pillars of democracy.

If I were you I would fill an official complain to the Republican party because such undemocratic practices are just a total shame and a clear violation of the US democratic ideal as well as of the constitution. This is the kind of things people do in banana republics. The kind of things that calls for the dispatch of UN observers to ensure that an election is done without cheating.

Cheers,
Bernard

Everyone in America criticises the courts - Democrats and Republicans alike.  It's legal, moral, and critically important in a democracy.  If courts were always right, why can rulings be appealed to higher courts?  Obviously, those on the losing sides disagree with decisions.  That's why they appeal.  In fact, almost every case that goes before the Supreme Court is an appeal of a decision made by a lower court.  The losing side feels they've been done wrong and are appealing.  They criticise the lower court's decision ripping it apart so the  higher court reverses the lower court's ruling. People march and demonstrate outside the courts where these appeals are being heard. 

For a Chief Magistrate of one of the 50 states to argue that people shouldn't complain about court decisions is just bizarre.  Unless officials are ignoring court decisions, it's just hurt pride on her part.

[Alan Klein]

If you are correct, it means that Trump is the Republican president with the lowest ever support for research since the previous Republican president have never triggered such reactions.

But you know full well that your interpretation isn't correct right?

If this were their motivation why would they have not stated it as the main cause for their decision? Many people do complain openly about budget cuts for research. There were research cuts before at various times in the history of the US.

Instead, they have clearly stated that their main motivation is that they think that Trump's denial of science is bad for the country. Their move is a patriotic one. They are doing what is good for the US, and therefore for you.

Cheers,
Bernard

They're saying that so they can make more money. 

[Peter McLennan]

They're saying that so they can make more money.

In your opinion, possibly.  I find that somewhat cynical.

I prefer to take the view that those scientists really do care about truth more than the pocketbooks of the journals mentioned.

[BernardLanguillier]

They're saying that so they can make more money.

Perhaps that’s how you would look at it, but if that were the case it would only speak about your own ethical limits.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Everyone in America criticises the courts - Democrats and Republicans alike.  It's legal, moral, and critically important in a democracy.  If courts were always right, why can rulings be appealed to higher courts?  Obviously, those on the losing sides disagree with decisions.  That's why they appeal.  In fact, almost every case that goes before the Supreme Court is an appeal of a decision made by a lower court.  The losing side feels they've been done wrong and are appealing.  They criticise the lower court's decision ripping it apart so the  higher court reverses the lower court's ruling. People march and demonstrate outside the courts where these appeals are being heard. 

For a Chief Magistrate of one of the 50 states to argue that people shouldn't complain about court decisions is just bizarre.  Unless officials are ignoring court decisions, it's just hurt pride on her part.

You understand the difference btwn commenting about a general court decision and criticizing one that rules that a democratic party is abusing the office in an attempt to end democracy right?

This isn’t about playing within the system, it’s about killing the system itself.

What is your take on this decision?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

You understand the difference btwn commenting about a general court decision and criticizing one that rules that a democratic party is abusing the office in an attempt to end democracy right?

This isn’t about playing within the system, it’s about killing the system itself.

What is your take on this decision?

Cheers,
Bernard

My point had nothing to do with the decision.  I never mentioned it. My point was about the right to criticize the court, it's justices, and its rulings. 

[BernardLanguillier]

My point had nothing to do with the decision.  I never mentioned it. My point was about the right to criticize the court, it's justices, and its rulings.

And my point is that the infraction this decision applies to isn’t you typical billion US$ corporate theft case or you typical mass murder case.

It’s a violation of the most sacred aspect of the law in the US, the fair voting of electors.

So criticism of such a ruling also isn’t your regular discussion of court decision.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Robert Roaldi]

They're saying that so they can make more money.

So scientists are in it for the money, are they. This will come as news to them, I assure you. That is a crazy position to take. I don't want to understate how wrong you are. The position you are taking is the equivalent of believing in Alien abduction.

[Robert Roaldi]

The magazine and organizations and the scientists they represent will get more funding from the government if Biden is president.  If you want to understand what's happening, just follow the money.

So, only Democratic administrations invest in sci & tech? Is that really what you're saying? Seriously?

Just as one small example, it's the military who built the GPS system. Is that a wild-ass socialist idea gone mad then?

You are making a fundamental error in logical thinking. You have come to the conclusion that because someone tells you something you don't want to hear, that therefore they are lying. You need to re-examine the thought process that got you here.

[Alan Klein]

So scientists are in it for the money, are they. This will come as news to them, I assure you. That is a crazy position to take. I don't want to understate how wrong you are. The position you are taking is the equivalent of believing in Alien abduction.

You can love your field of endeavor and still want to make sure you continue to have a job or make more money at it.  How many photographers love photography but still want to make more money at it?  People can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[TechTalk]

There are a variety of ways in which a judicial decision can be criticized. The legal reasoning underlying a decision can be challenged. The constitutionality can be questioned as well as the logic, consequences, or impact of a decision.

Accusing a judge of colluding in deceit and corruption is an attack on the moral character and ethical integrity of the judge and the court, not a criticism of the legal reasoning of the decision. It goes well beyond an accusation of biased reasoning. In fact, such an accusation could be seen as a charge of criminal behavior by the judge. This is what the Ohio Republican Party did in their statement.

If they had any evidence that the accusations in their public statement were true, they should file a grievance with the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel showing evidence of the judge violating the code of judicial conduct or a criminal complaint with evidence of corruption. Instead, they made accusations of improper (and likely illegal) conduct by the judge without any evidence, otherwise known in common non-legalistic language as a smear, against the judge and the court he represents.

Rather than challenge the legal reasoning and citations of law contained in the judge's ruling, they chose to attack his moral character in their public statement following the decision. Why someone would want to defend that as a reasonable response by a major political party to a judicial decision escapes me. It was apparently considered unreasonable and indefensible by the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, despite the fact that it was made by the same party she has repeatedly represented in multiple elections to state office. A Chief Justice has both a right and responsibility to defend the reputation and integrity of the courts and its members from assaults made without evidence. Her statement did not criticize any legal arguments made as there were none in the attack on the judge.

The judge's 31-page decision for those that are interested.  https://www.scribd.com/document/Judge-Richard-Frye-drop-box-opinion-Sept-15-2020

[Alan Klein]

There are a variety of ways in which a judicial decision can be criticized. The legal reasoning underlying a decision can be challenged. The constitutionality can be questioned as well as the logic, consequences, or impact of a decision.

Accusing a judge of colluding in deceit and corruption is an attack on the moral character and ethical integrity of the judge and the court, not a criticism of the legal reasoning of the decision. It goes well beyond an accusation of biased reasoning. In fact, such an accusation could be seen as a charge of criminal behavior by the judge. This is what the Ohio Republican Party did in their statement.

If they had any evidence that the accusations in their public statement were true, they should file a grievance with the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel showing evidence of the judge violating the code of judicial conduct or a criminal complaint with evidence of corruption. Instead, they made accusations of improper (and likely illegal) conduct by the judge without any evidence, otherwise known in common non-legalistic language as a smear, against the judge and the court he represents.

Rather than challenge the legal reasoning and citations of law contained in the judge's ruling, they chose to attack his moral character in their public statement following the decision. Why someone would want to defend that as a reasonable response by a major political party to a judicial decision escapes me. It was apparently considered unreasonable and indefensible by the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, despite the fact that it was made by the same party she has repeatedly represented in multiple elections to state office. A Chief Justice has both a right and responsibility to defend the reputation and integrity of the courts and its members from assaults made without evidence. Her statement did not criticize any legal arguments made as there were none in the attack on the judge.

The judge's 31-page decision for those that are interested.  https://www.scribd.com/document/Judge-Richard-Frye-drop-box-opinion-Sept-15-2020

I wonder how you feel about how the Democrat party accused Brett Kavanaugh, a Federal Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for 12 years, as a rapist?  They tried to destroy his judicial career and personal life just for political reasons because they didn't like his judicial philosophy.

[PeterAit]

They're saying that so they can make more money.

Scientists (and I have been one for my entire working career) are human beings. And like other human beings, we want to keep our jobs and funding, get raises, and so on. But money as a primary motivation is not the case for almost all of us. That's businessmen.

[Alan Klein]

Scientists (and I have been one for my entire working career) are human beings. And like other human beings, we want to keep our jobs and funding, get raises, and so on. But money as a primary motivation is not the case for almost all of us. That's businessmen.

I never said it was a primary motivation.  I said keeping one's job, getting funding for research from the government etc., are important issues to scientists.  They have to feed their families as much as anyone else. 

Also arguing the businessman go into business because money is their primary concern is just as false for most.  Being a boss, running things the way you want, making the final decision, creating things as you see fit not as others want, wanted to create things (Steve Jobs - Apple, Elon Musk-Tesla Space X) etc are all things that make people go into business for themselves. How about fame?  Most business fail and loss money in any case.

Do employees want to get promoted because they want to take on more responsibility or because they want more money?  Did you ever ask for a raise? 

[Alan Klein]

Trump's fault.

Covid: UK seeing second wave, says Boris Johnson
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54212654

[BernardLanguillier]

Anyway, the real question that will consolidate or not the US as a dictatorship is the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Considering the clear intent of Trump to steal the elections whatever their actual outcome, there is no doubt that he is striving to replace her before the election to ensure he gets a positive vote when the time comes to assess whether he did cheat or not.

Cheers,
Bernard