How do I know if I’m a MAGA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re house is on wheels and your truck isn’t, you might be MAGA.

If you can't differentiate between "your" and "you're", you're just your average ignorant liberal.

You’re absolutely right. I’m an average ignorant liberal. The thing is, the average ignorant liberal is 14 IQ points to the right of 100 with a large standard deviation. Plenty of liberal idiots, plenty of liberal geniuses. The average MAGA (they’re all ignorant) is 14 points to the left of 100, very tightly wrapped around the median.

That's a fact, Cletus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

It identifies the place where the accused has a right to trial by jury. It doesn't say the accused has a right to choose a jury from wherever the accused wishes. Court rules for procedure governs venue changes. If the accused wants a change in venue, there are standards to meet.

So you are conceding the point that the trial isn't required to take place in DC, and in fact, cannot take place in DC if the government can't produce an impartial Jury.

The government doesn’t “produce” a jury. DC maintains a list of eligible jurors based on records such as voter registration, drivers licenses, and receipt of public assistance. Jurors are then summoned for duty where they may get selected after being subjected to questioning by the court and counsel utilizing a void dire process designed to identify individuals who cannot judge the evidence with impartiality. Impartial doesn’t mean that you can’t be a registered Democrat. It doesn’t mean you can’t have voted for Obama. Living in DC doesn’t disqualify anyone from serving on a jury. This is the type of critical thinking I’d expect from a fourth grader.

Produce - cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.

Everything in your description is the government causing a jury to be formed.

LOL...

Repulicans: facts, logic, and definitions from the dictionary...
Democrats:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re house is on wheels and your truck isn’t, you might be MAGA.

If you can't differentiate between "your" and "you're", you're just your average ignorant liberal.

You’re absolutely right. I’m an average ignorant liberal. The thing is, the average ignorant liberal is 14 IQ points to the right of 100 with a large standard deviation. Plenty of liberal idiots, plenty of liberal geniuses. The average MAGA (they’re all ignorant) is 14 points to the left of 100, very tightly wrapped around the median.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081

Carl (2014) analysed data from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS), and found that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat. An important qualification was that the measure of verbal intelligence used was relatively crude, namely a 10-word vocabulary test. This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. Path analyses indicate that the associations between cognitive ability and party identity are largely but not totally accounted for by socio-economic position: individuals with higher cognitive ability tend to have better socio-economic positions, and individuals with better socio-economic positions are more likely to identify as Republican. These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you voted for Trump are you automatically a MAGA?

If you think O'Biden is a lunatic, you are probably a MAGA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

PP suggested it is too difficult to think such a jury could be impartial. The framers thought otherwise, so strongly that the made it a constitutional right of the accused.

No, learn to read. The framers in no way assumed the impartiality of the jury in the state/district where the crime is committed. The fact that they made it a requirement for the jury to be impartial indicates that they are concerned about the impartiality of such a jury.

We can all read the Constitution, the rules of criminal procedure, and the case law that goes with it. An impartial jury is a right. A defendant can file a motion to change venue due to lack of an impartial jury, but the burden of proof is on the defendant, so yes, the court does assume impartiality unless on motion the defendant satisfactorily meets the burden of proving otherwise, and the court has wide discretion when considering these motions. They are rarely granted.

Well, apparently only some of us can read the Constitution. The rest of what you wrote is all true, and I agree with everything. However, the previous claim is that the US Constitution requires that the trial take place in the state/district where the crime occurred. This is factually and unambiguously false. People should just admit their mistakes and move on, rather than be gleefully dismissive when others point out their mistaken understanding.

It is required and is in fact the presumptive location of the trial: "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." There are often exceptions to and relief from requirements. Court rules provide such an exception if the defendant can prove, for example, that an impartial jury cannot be found in the required location. If you want to say that then means a requirement is not a requirement, then you are playing with semantics. Either way, the whole actual point of this side tracked part of the thread doesn't change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

I remember Democrats claiming this about 2016 election...

I don’t remember Hillary refusing to concede, a conspiracy to appoint fake electors, a violent attack on the Capitol in January 2017 and people defending the attack as ordinary tourists. Maybe I missed all of that. What I do remember is Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell refusing to join Obamacin a bipartisan denunciation of Russian efforts to interfere in the election through well-documented hacking and disinformation operations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

Okay, cool. Thanks for showing us all that Hillary did not refuse to concede, did not participate in a conspiracy to appoint fake electors, and did not incite a violent attack on the Capitol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

I remember Democrats claiming this about 2016 election...

I don’t remember Hillary refusing to concede, a conspiracy to appoint fake electors, a violent attack on the Capitol in January 2017 and people defending the attack as ordinary tourists. Maybe I missed all of that. What I do remember is Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell refusing to join Obamacin a bipartisan denunciation of Russian efforts to interfere in the election through well-documented hacking and disinformation operations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

Hillary conceded election night (yet she won the popular vote by 3 million). You can concede an election and still continue to raise concerns. But because it’s Hillary everything is viewed through a different lens. You can also question campaign decisions made in the closing weeks of the election just as much as the email ratf*ckery coming out of the NY Field Office of the FBI (aided by Giuliani and Kerik) in connection with the Weiner laptop and the manner in which Comey grossly mishandled the entire matter. As far as I’m concerned. America is better off never hearing from the likes of Clinton, Giuliani and Comey ever again. Trump even more so. Yet our politics are irreparably infected with an army of mini-Trumps who value power over democratic principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re house is on wheels and your truck isn’t, you might be MAGA.

If you can't differentiate between "your" and "you're", you're just your average ignorant liberal.

You’re absolutely right. I’m an average ignorant liberal. The thing is, the average ignorant liberal is 14 IQ points to the right of 100 with a large standard deviation. Plenty of liberal idiots, plenty of liberal geniuses. The average MAGA (they’re all ignorant) is 14 points to the left of 100, very tightly wrapped around the median.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081

Carl (2014) analysed data from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS), and found that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat. An important qualification was that the measure of verbal intelligence used was relatively crude, namely a 10-word vocabulary test. This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. Path analyses indicate that the associations between cognitive ability and party identity are largely but not totally accounted for by socio-economic position: individuals with higher cognitive ability tend to have better socio-economic positions, and individuals with better socio-economic positions are more likely to identify as Republican. These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.

Unbelievable! Noah Carl is a blatant White racist who has been universally repudiated and fired from his position at Cambridge for his pseudo scientific racist claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

PP suggested it is too difficult to think such a jury could be impartial. The framers thought otherwise, so strongly that the made it a constitutional right of the accused.

No, learn to read. The framers in no way assumed the impartiality of the jury in the state/district where the crime is committed. The fact that they made it a requirement for the jury to be impartial indicates that they are concerned about the impartiality of such a jury.

We can all read the Constitution, the rules of criminal procedure, and the case law that goes with it. An impartial jury is a right. A defendant can file a motion to change venue due to lack of an impartial jury, but the burden of proof is on the defendant, so yes, the court does assume impartiality unless on motion the defendant satisfactorily meets the burden of proving otherwise, and the court has wide discretion when considering these motions. They are rarely granted.

Well, apparently only some of us can read the Constitution. The rest of what you wrote is all true, and I agree with everything. However, the previous claim is that the US Constitution requires that the trial take place in the state/district where the crime occurred. This is factually and unambiguously false. People should just admit their mistakes and move on, rather than be gleefully dismissive when others point out their mistaken understanding.

It is required and is in fact the presumptive location of the trial: "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." There are often exceptions to and relief from requirements. Court rules provide such an exception if the defendant can prove, for example, that an impartial jury cannot be found in the required location. If you want to say that then means a requirement is not a requirement, then you are playing with semantics. Either way, the whole actual point of this side tracked part of the thread doesn't change.

Presumption is not the same as required. Presumed innocence, for example, is not the same as required finding of innocence. Even the Constitution does not presume a location of the trial, it merely points to a location that the accused has a right to. The judicial procedures is what presumes the trial location, but in deference to the constitutional requirement that the court can be persuaded or compelled to move the venue by the accused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on why you voted for him and which of his activities you currently support.

So if given a choice in next election between Trump and Biden, if I would choose Trump, then I’m a MAGA?

Even if I’d rather see Youngkin or Desantis as the nominee?

If you would vote for Trump under any circumstances you are a MAGA and a delusional idiot.

[Anonymous]

You might be a MAGA if you’ve ever signed up for an account on Truth Social, Gab or Parler: watch Fox News, OANN or Newsmax; listen to Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck or Joe Rogan; or think Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity are anything but propagandists who find a sniff of the taint of white nationalism mixed with right wing authoritarianism nothing short of intoxicating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re house is on wheels and your truck isn’t, you might be MAGA.

If you can't differentiate between "your" and "you're", you're just your average ignorant liberal.

You’re absolutely right. I’m an average ignorant liberal. The thing is, the average ignorant liberal is 14 IQ points to the right of 100 with a large standard deviation. Plenty of liberal idiots, plenty of liberal geniuses. The average MAGA (they’re all ignorant) is 14 points to the left of 100, very tightly wrapped around the median.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081

Carl (2014) analysed data from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS), and found that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat. An important qualification was that the measure of verbal intelligence used was relatively crude, namely a 10-word vocabulary test. This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. Path analyses indicate that the associations between cognitive ability and party identity are largely but not totally accounted for by socio-economic position: individuals with higher cognitive ability tend to have better socio-economic positions, and individuals with better socio-economic positions are more likely to identify as Republican. These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.

Unbelievable! Noah Carl is a blatant White racist who has been universally repudiated and fired from his position at Cambridge for his pseudo scientific racist claims.

If you cite a rabid racist like Noah Carl the yes, you’re MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Just gonna say, being MAGA doesn’t make you a legal expert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just gonna say, being MAGA doesn’t make you a legal expert.

Neither does being a Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just gonna say, being MAGA doesn’t make you a legal expert.

Neither does being a Democrat.

Maybe not, but our I Q.'s are way, way, way above 69.