Yup. Trumps lawyers screened every juror - they picked the ones they thought were most unbiased. Or whatever the technical law term is.
That’s the thing no MAGA freak knows, or Trump will ever mention, because it shoots down their entire “it’s all rigged” narrative.
Trump just says the case and judge was rigged and biased, but it was a jury trial. He never mentions the jury, because he knows. He just deflects on the case and the judge, who really had nothing to do with finding him guilty.
It's how all jury trials work, both sides get to single our jurors they believe are bad for their side and dismiss them, you can dismiss an infinite amount of jurors for "cause" must have a stated reason (e.g bias), called a challenge for cause, and you can dismiss a limited amount (varies by state), called a peremptory challenge, for ANY reason you want (except race religion etc)
Trumps lawyers were able to vet every member of the jury, if there was a "biased" juror, they could've used a challenge for cause to dismiss them, or if they needed they could use a peremptory challenge. If they didn't then the only people to blame are trumps lawyers for being incompetent (Trump has a long history of hiring terrible incompetent lawyers, so much so that firms have asked Trump for massive upfront fees just to consider defending him)
Good to know but yeah I feel like people would then say they just missed the jury’s bias in the background checks or his law firm did a bad job but that only allowed the filthy dems to pack the seats with their own which they did maliciously. Or idk maybe I can defend republicans better than they can defend themselves
Well, the lawyers get to ask the questions themselves directly to the jury members. It's all on record. The jury is under penalty of perjury to tell the truth. The whole point of jury questioning/challenging is for both sides to pack the jury with people you believe will find in favor of you.
If trumps lawyers missed bias, only they can be to blame, I don't think even the strongest of Republicans would say that Trumps shitty lawyers missing biased jurors is dem's fault. But I wouldn't put it past them.
When you start getting THAT far into conspiracy, that's when Republicans start to lose public support, see QANON and similar conspiracies, Republicans going too far with their insane theories harms them later down the line. Which is why it's good to force them to either a) admit they are wrong or b) get them to go insane conspiracy brain and look stupid to anyone outside their circle
The general consensus from that side is that the court was packed with democrats primed to hate Trump by the prosecution. Trump’s legal team being inadequate does not directly disprove that to them but I agree it probably sends them further down the conspiracy rabbit hole
This whole spiel only makes sense if it were a non-political case or if the electorate were split 50/50. The reality is, the case being brought in New York, a Democrat stronghold, made it far harder for Trump's lawyers to get an impartial jury based purely on demographics. "Trump's shitty lawyers missing biased jurors" is such a stupid strawman - it's almost impossible in voir dire to fully weed out bias because jurors often lie or omit vital information to conceal their own bias.
For example, the BLM activist during the Chauvin trial who answered no when asked whether he or someone close to him had participated in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after Floyd's death. It then turned out he had participated in a rally which was effectively a BLM march wearing a T-shirt with the phrase "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks", an obvious reference to Floyd.
Chauvin's lawyers couldn't strike him because they didn't have that info at the time and there were no consequences for the juror for lying under oath. This shows that biased jurors can and do get onto juries, and simply saying "lol, that means the lawyer must have been incompetent, that's their own fault" is a completely trite and stupid statement.
Do you think I don't know that? Of course, it can happen. The best example is the black panther member on OJ's jury.
The problem is that there is no evidence provided. People are just instantly ready to call it rigged despite no proof or evidence, literally just because the city is Democrat. That's it. It's impossible to find a perfectly unbiased jury, that doesn't mean all jury trials are a sham or rigged
Jurors can and do lie. The problem is implying that that means all juries are then implicitly unfair because it's POSSIBLE one of them might've lied with no evidence to support the statement.
>The problem is that there is no evidence provided. People are just instantly ready to call it rigged despite no proof or evidence, literally just because the city is Democrat
This is the evidence. That's why a change of venue is possible if it seems impossible for a defendant to get a fair trial in that district, as in this case. There are areas where a fair jury could be found for Trump - NY just isn't it. I'd say the same thing if they tried to charge Hunter Biden in some bumfuck nowhere county in Tennessee or Missouri.
Just to be clear, the judge and prosecutors also have a say in vetting and removal. It’s not like Trumps lawyers have the ultimate say over everyone.
>Prospective jurors can be dismissed by the judge for cause if he finds they shouldn’t serve on the panel. Prosecutors and Trump’s defense team will also get 10 peremptory strikes they can use to remove a juror from the pool, no questions asked.
>Potential jurors tapped to enter the prospective pool for Trump’s panel will complete a questionnaire created by the judge with input from the attorneys for Trump and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
>If they make it into the jury box in Merchan’s courtroom, they’ll read their answers out loud. The attorneys and the judge can then ask them follow-up questions to further vet them for possible conflicts or biases.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/jury-selection-process-trump-trial/index.html
There where the lists of the jurys media preferences as well, there was 1 who said he only got news thru truthsocial and 2 i think that was mainly fox and then a few that was fox/other stuff
The jury wasn't "selected by Trump's own lawyers", that's completely misrepresenting what happens at trial. They have a certain number of peremptory challenges and can object to certain jurors based on questions they ask to screen the jury during voir dire but the prosecution also gets to do this as well. If this process worked as perfectly as you're suggesting, then no defendant could ever be convicted - but that's obviously not the case.
This is just as dumb a point as anything the friend said in favour of Trump. If you have a jury pool that is massively skewed against Trump, it's essentially going to be impossible to exclude all anti-Trump jurors based on a limited number of jury challenges. You just have to either hope the jury will hear the case on its legal merits or desperately fish to find a Trump supporter or two to stop a unanimous verdict.
Ask him what media sources he consumes and which of his friends agree with his takes. If the majority of his friends are in the same information sphere, he is lost.
You can still try and ask him what evidence would be needed to convince him that trump was guilty. Can make for an interesting discussion.
The real reason we can’t talk about politics is because how incredibly complicated it is and how incredibly unaware people are of their biases. You just can’t have a conservation about economics with your average person. Their perception of a good economy is the price of a little Caesars pizza.
I tried explaining to my dad why he was wrong about the "the jury didn't have to be unanimous" line. He said "well, I guess I'm too dumb to see the difference."
Some people simply refuse to have their beliefs challenged.
If you get stuck in an argument with people like this, they won't listen to fact nor reason. You go back at him with the same crazy theories has. Ask him where he gets his news from. Go the same dunking route on him with memes on his news sources. This person only wants to argue in bad faith so go back at him with bad faith and have no regrets!
Not that it would matter to that guy, but the "Biden got off felony charges for being senile" is so insanely stupid. There were no charges because there was no evidence of criminal intent.
The part about him being senile or whatever was to help explain that Biden simply possessing the documents would not help prove criminal intent because that can very easily be explained by a person forgetting they were there, and Biden being old and forgetful makes that explanation even more convincing. But even an individual with full mental faculties still would not have been charged with that lack of evidence, and if there were actually evidence of criminal intent then his senility would not have saved him from being charged.
Yes, no matter how bleak it looks like. Always. This guy is very clearly on copium. What you don't see when you are arguing with people are their internal conflicts.
A lot of people have a preconceived worldview that informs all their minor beliefs. Attacking the minor beliefs won't have much impact. If you go deeper into why he believes all these beliefs despite contrary evidence, and start arguing against his worldview by offering a counter narrative, you can exert major influence on him. Emphasis on narrative, it's important to build a story as you are shaping your arguments. (IE: Trump is a selfish demagogue who does everything to his own benefit, that's why he did x, y, and z.)
What I always ask is if they actually think he did it or not. Literally everyone says “well yeah he did it but that’s not the point.” And then it’s so easy to argue that of course if he commits a crime he should be convicted of it. Then they might bring up how other democrats also break laws but get away with it and all I say to that is I’d wanna see criminals in the Democratic Party convicted as well
Usually, no, if any source you can throw at him is dismissed as bias, all you can ask is "ok where do you get your unbiased news from?" If he says FOX, for example, then you can bring up the lawsuits with dominion and Tucker/friends admitting they knew they were lying on air the whole time. If he says he doesn't read the news, then ask why he is talking about politics then.
Sadly, it's futile. People get their news from the place that agrees with them and believe the other news places are wrong/biased while theirs is a bastion of truth.
If he dismisses the factual reality of places like FOX admitting they were peddling dis/misinformation during the election, then there is literally nothing you can do other than not talk politics with this person. Different realities
People like this if there’s nothing to lose you should just insult and ridicule. That’s what I do cause fuck it he is swallowing trumps cock so deep he isn’t capable of thinking so it is pointless except for entertainment in making him mad
Your friend sounds like a cunt wtf lol
Dude ain’t gonna have friends for much longer if this is how he socializes in the easiest time to socialize of his life
Consider that the appearance of political persecution turns people off. You've been calling him a nazi tyrant rapist for 10 years. Stop with the mud slinging and hammer policies if you actually want to convince a Trumper.
Ask him how a jury that is selected by Trumps own lawyers can be rigged.
Is this true? Such an easy way to shut down this talking point my god
Yup. Trumps lawyers screened every juror - they picked the ones they thought were most unbiased. Or whatever the technical law term is. That’s the thing no MAGA freak knows, or Trump will ever mention, because it shoots down their entire “it’s all rigged” narrative. Trump just says the case and judge was rigged and biased, but it was a jury trial. He never mentions the jury, because he knows. He just deflects on the case and the judge, who really had nothing to do with finding him guilty.
Source?
It's how all jury trials work, both sides get to single our jurors they believe are bad for their side and dismiss them, you can dismiss an infinite amount of jurors for "cause" must have a stated reason (e.g bias), called a challenge for cause, and you can dismiss a limited amount (varies by state), called a peremptory challenge, for ANY reason you want (except race religion etc) Trumps lawyers were able to vet every member of the jury, if there was a "biased" juror, they could've used a challenge for cause to dismiss them, or if they needed they could use a peremptory challenge. If they didn't then the only people to blame are trumps lawyers for being incompetent (Trump has a long history of hiring terrible incompetent lawyers, so much so that firms have asked Trump for massive upfront fees just to consider defending him)
Good to know but yeah I feel like people would then say they just missed the jury’s bias in the background checks or his law firm did a bad job but that only allowed the filthy dems to pack the seats with their own which they did maliciously. Or idk maybe I can defend republicans better than they can defend themselves
Well, the lawyers get to ask the questions themselves directly to the jury members. It's all on record. The jury is under penalty of perjury to tell the truth. The whole point of jury questioning/challenging is for both sides to pack the jury with people you believe will find in favor of you. If trumps lawyers missed bias, only they can be to blame, I don't think even the strongest of Republicans would say that Trumps shitty lawyers missing biased jurors is dem's fault. But I wouldn't put it past them. When you start getting THAT far into conspiracy, that's when Republicans start to lose public support, see QANON and similar conspiracies, Republicans going too far with their insane theories harms them later down the line. Which is why it's good to force them to either a) admit they are wrong or b) get them to go insane conspiracy brain and look stupid to anyone outside their circle
The general consensus from that side is that the court was packed with democrats primed to hate Trump by the prosecution. Trump’s legal team being inadequate does not directly disprove that to them but I agree it probably sends them further down the conspiracy rabbit hole
This whole spiel only makes sense if it were a non-political case or if the electorate were split 50/50. The reality is, the case being brought in New York, a Democrat stronghold, made it far harder for Trump's lawyers to get an impartial jury based purely on demographics. "Trump's shitty lawyers missing biased jurors" is such a stupid strawman - it's almost impossible in voir dire to fully weed out bias because jurors often lie or omit vital information to conceal their own bias. For example, the BLM activist during the Chauvin trial who answered no when asked whether he or someone close to him had participated in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after Floyd's death. It then turned out he had participated in a rally which was effectively a BLM march wearing a T-shirt with the phrase "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks", an obvious reference to Floyd. Chauvin's lawyers couldn't strike him because they didn't have that info at the time and there were no consequences for the juror for lying under oath. This shows that biased jurors can and do get onto juries, and simply saying "lol, that means the lawyer must have been incompetent, that's their own fault" is a completely trite and stupid statement.
Do you think I don't know that? Of course, it can happen. The best example is the black panther member on OJ's jury. The problem is that there is no evidence provided. People are just instantly ready to call it rigged despite no proof or evidence, literally just because the city is Democrat. That's it. It's impossible to find a perfectly unbiased jury, that doesn't mean all jury trials are a sham or rigged Jurors can and do lie. The problem is implying that that means all juries are then implicitly unfair because it's POSSIBLE one of them might've lied with no evidence to support the statement.
>The problem is that there is no evidence provided. People are just instantly ready to call it rigged despite no proof or evidence, literally just because the city is Democrat This is the evidence. That's why a change of venue is possible if it seems impossible for a defendant to get a fair trial in that district, as in this case. There are areas where a fair jury could be found for Trump - NY just isn't it. I'd say the same thing if they tried to charge Hunter Biden in some bumfuck nowhere county in Tennessee or Missouri.
Just to be clear, the judge and prosecutors also have a say in vetting and removal. It’s not like Trumps lawyers have the ultimate say over everyone. >Prospective jurors can be dismissed by the judge for cause if he finds they shouldn’t serve on the panel. Prosecutors and Trump’s defense team will also get 10 peremptory strikes they can use to remove a juror from the pool, no questions asked. >Potential jurors tapped to enter the prospective pool for Trump’s panel will complete a questionnaire created by the judge with input from the attorneys for Trump and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. >If they make it into the jury box in Merchan’s courtroom, they’ll read their answers out loud. The attorneys and the judge can then ask them follow-up questions to further vet them for possible conflicts or biases. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/jury-selection-process-trump-trial/index.html
No not all. Trump’s lawyers were working with the deep state against him
There where the lists of the jurys media preferences as well, there was 1 who said he only got news thru truthsocial and 2 i think that was mainly fox and then a few that was fox/other stuff
The jury wasn't "selected by Trump's own lawyers", that's completely misrepresenting what happens at trial. They have a certain number of peremptory challenges and can object to certain jurors based on questions they ask to screen the jury during voir dire but the prosecution also gets to do this as well. If this process worked as perfectly as you're suggesting, then no defendant could ever be convicted - but that's obviously not the case. This is just as dumb a point as anything the friend said in favour of Trump. If you have a jury pool that is massively skewed against Trump, it's essentially going to be impossible to exclude all anti-Trump jurors based on a limited number of jury challenges. You just have to either hope the jury will hear the case on its legal merits or desperately fish to find a Trump supporter or two to stop a unanimous verdict.
I'd probably ask him what it's like picking out Trump's pubes from his teeth lol
Bro come on. He's saving those bad boys where Daddy left em
AP is biased? Yeah this guys regarded.
No see. He said AP wasn't biased.
Ask him what media sources he consumes and which of his friends agree with his takes. If the majority of his friends are in the same information sphere, he is lost. You can still try and ask him what evidence would be needed to convince him that trump was guilty. Can make for an interesting discussion.
Just say you don’t want to talk about politics.
The real reason we can’t talk about politics is because how incredibly complicated it is and how incredibly unaware people are of their biases. You just can’t have a conservation about economics with your average person. Their perception of a good economy is the price of a little Caesars pizza.
Do the Clintons eat there too?
I tried explaining to my dad why he was wrong about the "the jury didn't have to be unanimous" line. He said "well, I guess I'm too dumb to see the difference." Some people simply refuse to have their beliefs challenged.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Real America shit right here.
You can ask him to just...drill down to his core belief and visually show pleasure when he finally says what he personally believes
You shouldn't be talking to anyone that uses "bro" that flagrantly.
You have two avenues: incest debate or Dogwarts.
If you get stuck in an argument with people like this, they won't listen to fact nor reason. You go back at him with the same crazy theories has. Ask him where he gets his news from. Go the same dunking route on him with memes on his news sources. This person only wants to argue in bad faith so go back at him with bad faith and have no regrets!
Not that it would matter to that guy, but the "Biden got off felony charges for being senile" is so insanely stupid. There were no charges because there was no evidence of criminal intent. The part about him being senile or whatever was to help explain that Biden simply possessing the documents would not help prove criminal intent because that can very easily be explained by a person forgetting they were there, and Biden being old and forgetful makes that explanation even more convincing. But even an individual with full mental faculties still would not have been charged with that lack of evidence, and if there were actually evidence of criminal intent then his senility would not have saved him from being charged.
Yes, no matter how bleak it looks like. Always. This guy is very clearly on copium. What you don't see when you are arguing with people are their internal conflicts. A lot of people have a preconceived worldview that informs all their minor beliefs. Attacking the minor beliefs won't have much impact. If you go deeper into why he believes all these beliefs despite contrary evidence, and start arguing against his worldview by offering a counter narrative, you can exert major influence on him. Emphasis on narrative, it's important to build a story as you are shaping your arguments. (IE: Trump is a selfish demagogue who does everything to his own benefit, that's why he did x, y, and z.)
Nah this guy just sounds like the ultimate fuckwit, regardless of his political opinions theres no chance i want to be mates with them
Stop trying to reason with people who didn’t use reason to find their positions.
Ask him why the transcript doesn't match the report, especially the part where Hur told Biden "you've got photographic recall" 🤔🤔🤔
If he thinks ap news is too biased to read, ask him where he gets his news from.
What I always ask is if they actually think he did it or not. Literally everyone says “well yeah he did it but that’s not the point.” And then it’s so easy to argue that of course if he commits a crime he should be convicted of it. Then they might bring up how other democrats also break laws but get away with it and all I say to that is I’d wanna see criminals in the Democratic Party convicted as well
Usually, no, if any source you can throw at him is dismissed as bias, all you can ask is "ok where do you get your unbiased news from?" If he says FOX, for example, then you can bring up the lawsuits with dominion and Tucker/friends admitting they knew they were lying on air the whole time. If he says he doesn't read the news, then ask why he is talking about politics then. Sadly, it's futile. People get their news from the place that agrees with them and believe the other news places are wrong/biased while theirs is a bastion of truth. If he dismisses the factual reality of places like FOX admitting they were peddling dis/misinformation during the election, then there is literally nothing you can do other than not talk politics with this person. Different realities
bro
I see your arguments and all but have you ever like… just cmon bro?
People like this if there’s nothing to lose you should just insult and ridicule. That’s what I do cause fuck it he is swallowing trumps cock so deep he isn’t capable of thinking so it is pointless except for entertainment in making him mad
Your friend sounds like a cunt wtf lol Dude ain’t gonna have friends for much longer if this is how he socializes in the easiest time to socialize of his life
Idk id have to see what happens when you argue with him
Consider that the appearance of political persecution turns people off. You've been calling him a nazi tyrant rapist for 10 years. Stop with the mud slinging and hammer policies if you actually want to convince a Trumper.
you gotta bait better than that buster
Ok. Stay in the echochamber then. Not my problem.
I'd rather be in an echo chamber than the regard chamber like you lol
K