ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
One of the departments under my wife is employee development. Remote education works just fine with motivated adults.
+1
Is there nothing you won't make up in order to pretend to be right? You're really saying that people appointed to be judges aren't motivated to learn how to judge properly?
I am saying Cannon clearly didn't give a ****, do you disagree? weren't we talking about her and her alone? did you read the long list of technical criticisms moved toward her multiple erroneous technical choices since she had her hands over the documents trial? and that's before we move toward the naked partisanship of judgement calls
sometimes I think you guys intervene about a single post related to a chain of replies without having read the previous ones.
it went something like, I think extremely notorious people can't get an impartial jury, so bench judgement should be better because trained pros can actually be more impartial.
you went like what about the judge in maralago document case, did she miss the training?
I went actually yes she did and I am also fully against previous prosecutors becoming judges.
rococo went no wait she didn't, I went there was COVID, he went so what she had remote access, i went that doesn't work to educate people who don't give a **** about something at all.
didace goes it works with motivated people, I say sure ok but that's not the case we are discussing.
all of this is above and clear to anyone.
jfc you all just want to waste my time
lol, the discussion about judge training was clearly about all federal judges. Is there anything you won't goalpost shift to attempt to prove you are smart?
Do you honestly think that Aileen Cannon's deficiencies as a judge are because of remote judge school. She was a prosecutor for nearly a decade. For better or worse, I'm sure she was quite familiar with trial management before she became a judge.
I am saying Cannon clearly didn't give a ****, do you disagree? weren't we talking about her and her alone? did you read the long list of technical criticisms moved toward her multiple erroneous technical choices since she had her hands over the documents trial? and that's before we move toward the naked partisanship of judgement calls
Well, you were until you decided to moved to much more general statements...
literally never been a judge before Trump nominated her, so yes she missed judge training lol
(i am bigly against anyone ever being a prosecutor becoming a judge and viceversa, we need checks and balances and a complete separation of accusatorial power, which is executive power, and judicial power)
Most judges who are appointed to the bench in federal district court were not judges before being nominated. Moving from the state court bench to the federal bench isn't much of a thing in the U.S.
And afaik, all new federal judges go to judge school.
I don't know for certain, but I highly doubt you are correct. I assume that it just went remote like everything else.
How would he, or anyone else, know that is true?
But since you apparently have insight into this, perhaps you can share your in-depth knowledge of the remote training they went through, and why it meant "basically not doing it"?
the disaster of remote education caused by covid mismanagement has been documented extensively, and here we are in an even worse situation, one of courses you can actually disregard anyway if you don't care too much, just try to imagine someone who couldn't care less to attend in person if he had to, having to log in remotely to pretend she is listening, what she can learn.
but nvmnd
And then you just continue with the generalizations, that have less and less to do with the original argument. Was keeping kids at home for a year or more good for their education? Hell no! Does this allow us to make definitive conclusions about a course or courses that judges might take online? LOL, of course not.
sometimes I think you guys intervene about a single post related to a chain of replies without having read the previous ones.
Sometimes I think you meander all over the place and make conclusive statements that you can't back up, but because you can never be wrong, you'll goalpost shift all day long to avoid admitting that you are.
the topic was still and is still Cannon, the above aren't generalizations. I listed reasons why it's credible to think that someone who becomes a federal judge in November 2020 and doesn't give a **** about being impartial won't learn to be impartial remotely in online courses.
it's not like in every reply about Cannon being not a good judge I have to repeat it's about Cannon ffs.
//
this thing happens all the times, I make statements related to a specific fact and the statement gets read as a claim on all reality and commented as such, causing a derail, which in one occasion got me banned for the derail lol.
given it was in this very thread, can you please all stop the insane derail?
sub-topic is Trump trials, one of them oversaw by a judge he nominated, who failed to act with impartiality a zillion times; but this isn't enough to claim that juries make sense in cases of exceptional notoriety imho (especially because there actually would be a jury in that case if it was ever tried, in jury trials you still incur judge risks anyway).
Presidents who picked a judge and senators who voted to confirm that judge (either pro or against) shouldn't be tried by that judge (for conflict of interest issues); prosecutors shouldn't become judges (for separation of power issues) ; a panel of 3 judges would severely reduce extreme partiality risks.
anyway we are in the world as it is not as I would like it to be.
right now it looks like this hush money case will be the only one tried before the election (there is some chance the federal case of election interference will be tried as well, but low chances).
Georgia case is stalled by the appeal court which just decided Trump has a right to appeal the decision about the prosecutor not being thrown off the case after the ethical violation.
Florida case is stalled indefinitely because "the law is complicated" (lol).
but yes please focus on my claims related to Cannon because you interpret them as general
lol. You gave no info on how you know Cannon did not care about the judge training - whether it was online or not - other than your feels. You made a general statement that online schooling didn't work for kids so of course it didn't work for new judges. Just suck it up and take the L on this one. If you want to argue Cannon is a terrible judge, I'm pretty sure you'll get a lot of agreement. But tying her competence to some other point you want to slip in - a favorite tactic of yours - is silly.
It must be a very strange world when in your mind you are never wrong about anything and it's always everyone else. How do you ever learn anything?
lol. You gave no info on how you know Cannon did not care about the judge training - whether it was online or not - other than your feels. You made a general statement that online schooling didn't work for kids so of course it didn't work for new judges. Just suck it up and take the L on this one. If you want to argue Cannon is a terrible judge, I'm pretty sure you'll get a lot of agreement. But tying her competence to some other point you want to slip in - a favorite tactic of yours - is silly.
Pretty much this. You could have sent Judge Cannon to in-person judge school for a decade and I doubt it would have affected her administration of Trump's criminal case.
lol. You gave no info on how you know Cannon did not care about the judge training - whether it was online or not - other than your feels.
Yes my read, my opinion, which ofc other people can disagree with.
We are trying to ascertain the impartiality or lack thereof of juries and judges in Trump trials right? A pretty relevant topic I thought you were interested in as well.
We give our opinions, we try to elaborate, and then we move on
Trump's plans for a second term: Raise prices on everything
With polls showing that inflation remains a top concern among voters,
the presumptive Republican nominee has somehow put together a campaign
platform featuring multiple proposals that would raise prices on everything
Lesson No. 1: Tariffs lead to higher prices
Lesson No. 2: Low interest rates lead to higher prices
Lesson No. 3: Tax cuts can lead to higher prices
Lesson No. 4: Fewer workers leads to higher prices
Lesson No. 5: A weak dollar leads to higher prices
In conclusion, prices would rise under Trump
Trump's plans for a second term: Raise prices on everything
With polls showing that inflation remains a top concern among voters,
the presumptive Republican nominee has somehow put together a campaign
platform featuring multiple proposals that would raise prices on everything
Lesson No. 1: Tariffs lead to higher prices
Lesson No. 2: Low interest rates lead to higher prices
Lesson No. 3: Tax cuts can lead to higher prices
Lesson No. 4: Fewer workers leads to higher prices
Lesson No. 5: A weak dollar le
I’m starting to think these MSNBC folks do not like Donald Trump
