How the hell can you justify posting bail at 15 times the value of the amoung that might have been stolen.
Your question is irrelevant to the issue. Bail is not a punitive system. It is meant to ensure that the person accused of the crime shows up for the trial and does not flee the jurisdiction. In Warren's case the guy was released without bail but then failed to make a number of court dates so the judge clearly felt he was a flight risk and the bail was set high enough that he would stay in jail. In Li's case the judge did not consider her an outright flight risk so the bail was set high enough that she would have a massive financial stake at not fleeing the country.
The point Highroller is making about votes being thrown out is different form 'not being for the winning candidate'. The purpose of preferential voting is so that the winner has 50%+1 votes. So in the scenario described
Trump/- : 1,000
Clinton/- : 500
Clinton/Stein: 475
Stein/Clinton: 40
Stein/- : 10
Round 1: Trump 1,000; Clinton 975; Stein 50
Stein/Clinton voters switch to Clinton
Round 2: Trump 1,000; Clinton 1,015
There is a total of 2,025 votes so to win a candidate needs 1,013 votes. However in the second round you have here we are throwing out the 10 Stein so there is only vote a total of 2,015 meaning a candidate only needs 1,008 votes to win. So the 10 Stein only votes literally aren't being counted any more. This is the problem Highroller was talking about. In an actually free election with the same rules if the margins had been a little different and neither Clinton nor Trump got the needed 1,013 votes(because 10 people didn't vote for either) then neither should have won and a new election would need to be done. However because no one wants that they simply don't count the 10 Stein votes so that someone is guaranteed to get 50%+1.
I do not see why you would classify that as a "free election" and not the preferential voting one.
Assuming the voters all still have the same preferences, your proposed runoff election would have the same result as round 2 of preferential voting. 10 former Stein voters would stay home and the rest would vote for their second choice. The voter total would drop to 2015 and 1008 votes would be needed for a win.
If the system allows me to not vote for either party, but then decides it's going to discard my vote - because all of the people I've actually stated preferences for have been eliminated, and I haven't stated a preference for either of the candidates that have yet to be eliminated - this is also unfair. This is no different from a system in which a person were only given the choice to vote for one of the two parties or not vote at all, as all of the votes otherwise are treated as not counting.
That is the equivalent of you staying home and not voting. All the candidates in the election either are not to your liking or they lack the support to get elected. Your preferences are simply not shared by enough of your fellow voters which is a natural occurrence in a democracy. I really do not see what is unfair about it. Your opinions is simply too unpopular in the community you live in and does not have a significant impact on the results of the election. Your vote really does not matter but at least it has been definitely proven that it does not matter.
The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to. As far as being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will decide that. Unfortunately there are laws stating that he can and laws stating that he can't.
Unfortunately his ban didn't just effect muslims travelling direct from those countries though. The way it was worded left it very unclear as to who should be effected so there were lots of stories of about the front line officers unsure if it applied to people who had visas , green cards and other permits that should have allowed them
entry, likewise people like Mo Farah were unsure if they could get into the country or not.
The way this order was written and implemented pretty much guaranteed that a court would suspend it. By making it applicable to people who already had Green Cards and visas, it ignored a ton-load of due process provisions. That's procedural level law and it's gonna irk any judge, no matter what his/her political leanings are. Laws and executive orders include grandfather clauses specifically to avoid this issue.
So I've only been loosely paying attention to this, but there seems to be more potentially serious stuff coming up with regards to Trump's Russia connections and the Electoral College and all of that. Surprised that it hasn't been brought up, but it at least seems to have become a bigger issue and could potentially influence what the EC does. It's also possible it's getting blown out of proportion too and that's why it hasn't been brought up here, but if not I'd be curious to hear more thoughts.
Unless there is a real "smoking gun" that can prove serious Russian involvement (eg voting machine hacking), this will not amount to much and the electors will vote along party lines.
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
C'mon, man. You have to know that one can be biased even while being completely truthful. Bias isn't just in the facts; it's in the worldview framing those facts. Michael Goldfarb at the BBC pointed out that the New York Times just appointed a gender editor, but no longer has a labor correspondent: identity politics are important to the paper, labor issues aren't. That's kind of a big deal. If the major concern in your life is jobs leaving your Rust Belt home city, then the Times running thinkpieces about gender issues every day isn't going to do much for you, even if all the factual statements made in those thinkpieces are true.
So is the Times showing a right wing bias because it no longer has serious focus on labor issues or is it a left wing bias because it gives more focus to gender issues? Or is labor now considered a right wing issue in the US?
Massive victory for whomever replaces her then...actually, anyone knows what happens if one of the candidates breaks their neck falling down the stairs? Does their VP take their place?
The rules are set by the party. I know that for the GOP, the party leadership gets together and selects a new candidate. Offhand, I can't say for certain that the same is true of the Democrats, but I would be surprised if it weren't.
In practice, I suspect that the running mate would be at the top of the list, especially when it's as good a candidate as Tim Kaine.
Wouldn't there also be issues with getting the new candidate on the ballot in all of the states? Each state would have its own rules about whether to allow a replacement candidate at this point in election.
For your first point, the officers that you hire can not take over what you own. That is theft, which is a violation of the law. If these officers resist the owner's word, force may be initiated upon them by the owner or by an entity the owner may hire. There will not be a shortage of police, why?, because the demand for police will cause their to be enough police to meet the demand, it's economics.
Who says that you actually "own" the property? Property rights are a purely arbitrary set of agreements enforced by a government. If I declare your property claims invalid then you are the thief and I have every right to use the public property. If you try to interfere, I obviously have the right to shoot you dead.
When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".
I generally assume that any society like this would also allow me to shoot drunk drivers as a form of self defense/justified homicide.
I'm laughing because this Republican National Convention did something I would have thought impossible: it gave me a measure of respect for Ted Cruz.
It is clear that Cruz, Kasich and in a smaller way Ryan are betting on Trump losing big and are positioning themselves to lead the party after the collapse. If Trump somehow wins, Cruz still has a strong and loyal power base to work from.
One of the commentators mentioned how many of the convention speeches mention Hillary Clinton more than they mention Trump. Some of them mention Clinton three times as much as they mention Trump.
No. Mexicans are not more likely to be biased than non-Mexicans.
Mexicans right now are more likely to be biased against Donald Trump than non-Mexicans. We're talking about one specific case, not all cases. Note that this does not determine that the judge must be biased against Trump.
I find that hard to believe. There are about 120 Million Mexicans right now. The US alone has over 320 million people who might have a reason to be biased against Trump. There are billions more non-Mexican people around the world who might not like Trump and thus be biased against him.
You continue to ignore that Trumps racial politics could potentially influence a judge, particularly one of Mexican decent.
All humans could potentially be biased, so it seems pretty irrelevant that you can present a way in which the judge could be biased, that he could be biased is an obvious truth. The point is that citing Mexican heritage is not at all sufficient justification for an accusation of bias. It doesn't matter if Mexican heritage is related to a potential bias, there needs to be an actual substantive demonstration of bias, otherwise the standard of bias you have created disqualifies all judges because there's always a way in which there could be bias.
I'm not making an argument these biases are disqualifying at face value. Just that they exist, and that pointing out that his Mexican heritage coupled with another variable could lead to biased results, by the judge. Pointing this out is not racist. All humans are biased, even you and me. The only question is, to what degree. You, like the rest, want to pretend his heritage was the only factor Trump was alluding too, then pretend you are not operating in a vacuum. I think Trump only brought up his heritage due to his immigration platform. If the judges heritage was not a factor in the judges mindset, he would not belong to a Hispanic legal group, there'd by no purpose.
Frankly, I would be more concerned that the judge is an American. An American judge would clearly be more biased toward someone like Trump than a Mexican one would.
There is a lawsuit being filed that argues that the Prime Minister cannot just exit the EU without an Act of Parliament since that would remove rights from UK citizens currently granted to them by EU membership. It would be interesting to see how a vote on Brexit in the House of Commons would go.
Your question is irrelevant to the issue. Bail is not a punitive system. It is meant to ensure that the person accused of the crime shows up for the trial and does not flee the jurisdiction. In Warren's case the guy was released without bail but then failed to make a number of court dates so the judge clearly felt he was a flight risk and the bail was set high enough that he would stay in jail. In Li's case the judge did not consider her an outright flight risk so the bail was set high enough that she would have a massive financial stake at not fleeing the country.
I do not see why you would classify that as a "free election" and not the preferential voting one.
Assuming the voters all still have the same preferences, your proposed runoff election would have the same result as round 2 of preferential voting. 10 former Stein voters would stay home and the rest would vote for their second choice. The voter total would drop to 2015 and 1008 votes would be needed for a win.
That is the equivalent of you staying home and not voting. All the candidates in the election either are not to your liking or they lack the support to get elected. Your preferences are simply not shared by enough of your fellow voters which is a natural occurrence in a democracy. I really do not see what is unfair about it. Your opinions is simply too unpopular in the community you live in and does not have a significant impact on the results of the election. Your vote really does not matter but at least it has been definitely proven that it does not matter.
The way this order was written and implemented pretty much guaranteed that a court would suspend it. By making it applicable to people who already had Green Cards and visas, it ignored a ton-load of due process provisions. That's procedural level law and it's gonna irk any judge, no matter what his/her political leanings are. Laws and executive orders include grandfather clauses specifically to avoid this issue.
Unless there is a real "smoking gun" that can prove serious Russian involvement (eg voting machine hacking), this will not amount to much and the electors will vote along party lines.
So is the Times showing a right wing bias because it no longer has serious focus on labor issues or is it a left wing bias because it gives more focus to gender issues? Or is labor now considered a right wing issue in the US?
Wouldn't there also be issues with getting the new candidate on the ballot in all of the states? Each state would have its own rules about whether to allow a replacement candidate at this point in election.
Who says that you actually "own" the property? Property rights are a purely arbitrary set of agreements enforced by a government. If I declare your property claims invalid then you are the thief and I have every right to use the public property. If you try to interfere, I obviously have the right to shoot you dead.
I generally assume that any society like this would also allow me to shoot drunk drivers as a form of self defense/justified homicide.
It is clear that Cruz, Kasich and in a smaller way Ryan are betting on Trump losing big and are positioning themselves to lead the party after the collapse. If Trump somehow wins, Cruz still has a strong and loyal power base to work from.
One of the commentators mentioned how many of the convention speeches mention Hillary Clinton more than they mention Trump. Some of them mention Clinton three times as much as they mention Trump.
I find that hard to believe. There are about 120 Million Mexicans right now. The US alone has over 320 million people who might have a reason to be biased against Trump. There are billions more non-Mexican people around the world who might not like Trump and thus be biased against him.
Frankly, I would be more concerned that the judge is an American. An American judge would clearly be more biased toward someone like Trump than a Mexican one would.
It's actually interesting watching Ryan maneuvering to be the "sane man in an impossible situation".