What's the US Conservative equivalent of moving to Canada?

[Starlight]

He has certainly talked about it enough that even a casual visitor of this forum is likely well aware of his self-proclaimed credentials.

You guys talk about it all the time. In this instance it looks like RTT told Pendragon all about it causing him to derail this thread by bringing it up and writing rambling posts about it.

But you're just as bad MM, you can't seem to respond to a single post of mine without trying to derail the subject to the topic of my intelligence and/or lack thereof. In general, try just focusing on the topic and not trying to make it a discussion about the level of intelligence of the other poster.

[Cow Poke]

You guys talk about it all the time. In this instance it looks like RTT told Pendragon all about it causing him to derail this thread by bringing it up and writing rambling posts about it.

But you're just as bad MM, you can't seem to respond to a single post of mine without trying to derail the subject to the topic of my intelligence and/or lack thereof. In general, try just focusing on the topic and not trying to make it a discussion about the level of intelligence of the other poster.

I like that you actually write in paragraphs and, for the most part, use proper grammar and spelling.

[Sparko]

Great way to dodge Pendragon's post by causing a derail about your credentials, Starlight. Very smart of you!

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F99e59449b7554b81bd40770ce32aa322%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D7723689&f=1&nofb=1.gif

[The Pendragon]

You guys talk about it all the time. In this instance it looks like RTT told Pendragon all about it causing him to derail this thread by bringing it up and writing rambling posts about it.

But you're just as bad MM, you can't seem to respond to a single post of mine without trying to derail the subject to the topic of my intelligence and/or lack thereof. In general, try just focusing on the topic and not trying to make it a discussion about the level of intelligence of the other poster.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much"

[The Pendragon]

I have always been open about being from Australia. I never claimed to be an American legal expert, I’m a lawyer in Australia which has essentially the same rules of evidence so my arguments won’t be invalidated on that account.

I believe you told me in one of your rebuttals to my posts that you where a Lawyer and knew the law, to assert your expertise on the subject over mine. (Did not say that you where an Australian Lawyer). I seem to to remember MM was also surprised that you where an Australian lawyer and others on the tread also argued with you assuming you where a US lawyer. I did consulted people with accrual US legal expertise and they did disagree with your views on evidence.

The fact is that the legal systems are similar, not the same. From what you where arguing on that tread and here in this post you are assuming that the rules are the same. Similar or essentially mean different.

As you said you are not an expert on American Law, so how can you insist that the rules of evidence are the same? Their are details that you will miss because you apply your rule of evidence to another country and those details are what were being argued. I have no doubt about your Credentials as an Australian Lawyer and If I needed a Lawyer in Australia you are at the top of my list, but would never want you to defend me in a US court, it's the little details that get you in legal battles.

I do want to say again, I admire your knowledge in Australian Law you look like a great lawyer "in Australia".

[Starlight]

Great way to dodge Pendragon's post

I don't plan to address his word-vomit conspiracy-theorism about liberal rhetorical traps etc. All his claims were false. At a certain point somebody's views are so wrong across the board that there's no point in trying to dialog.

[rogue06]

I believe you told me in one of your rebuttals to my posts that you where a Lawyer and knew the law, to assert your expertise on the subject over mine. (Did not say that you where an Australian Lawyer). I seem to to remember MM was also surprised that you where an Australian lawyer and others on the tread also argued with you assuming you where a US lawyer. I did consulted people with accrual US legal expertise and they did disagree with your views on evidence.

The fact is that the legal systems are similar, not the same. From what you where arguing on that tread and here in this post you are assuming that the rules are the same. Similar or essentially mean different.

As you said you are not an expert on American Law, so how can you insist that the rules of evidence are the same? Their are details that you will miss because you apply your rule of evidence to another country and those details are what were being argued. I have no doubt about your Credentials as an Australian Lawyer and If I needed a Lawyer in Australia you are at the top of my list, but would never want you to defend me in a US court, it's the little details that get you in legal battles.

I do want to say again, I admire your knowledge in Australian Law you look like a great lawyer "in Australia".

Star is a Kiwi not an Aussie

[Mountain Man]

You guys talk about it all the time.

Only to mock you.

[RumTumTugger]

Star is a Kiwi not an Aussie

Um Rogue, that was Watermelon Pendragon was talking to and he is an Aussie.

[rogue06]

Uh, Rogue that was Watermelon Pendragon was talking to and he is an Aussie.

Oops.

[RumTumTugger]

I don't plan to address his word-vomit conspiracy-theorism about liberal rhetorical traps etc. All his claims were false. At a certain point somebody's views are so wrong across the board that there's no point in trying to dialog.

Sorry you never proved his claims false you admitted that new Zealand had Slavery when taking Pendragon to task for what little he new of New Zealand history which he had already admitted to, all other points you conceded in not addressing them. to show a couple

Where was Pendragon's math wrong here

I didn’t see you quote the numbers on Canada. Obviously Stardark just wants to tell us how much better New Zealand is then any other Country. Clear case of New Zealand Worshiper

The 13% and 27% are misleading numbers. They favor countries with lower population. I’ve seen liberal use this trick before. Here’s how it works if the US’s immigrant population is just a little over twice what the population of New Zealand then we can say that the US has more Immigrants then New Zealand.

Here is the accrual math:
US Population: 328 Mil
New Zealand Population: 5 Mil

13% of 328 Mil is 3 Mil US immigrants (Over Half the total population of New Zealand)
27% of 5 Mil is 42,000 New Zealand immigrants.
What the math says is that more people want to be in the US then in New Zealand, just what I said in my post. And I used your Numbers. So again “The smartest man on this forum?“ did not look at the context of the statement and got it wrong.

Here is your the accrual math on on your alternate poll:

5 mil x 400% = 15 mil people would move to New Zealand
328 mil x 30% = 98 mil people would move to the US
What your International polling proves is that 83 mil more people prefer the US over New Zealand. Thank You “Smartest Man? on this forum” for proving my point and destroying your own, way to go Stardark. You really make it too easy.

you never gave any quotes where Pendragon or anyone else here said that the U.S. Constitution was the best infact when you tried to say Pendragon woudl be upset to find it wasn't and he told you you were wrong about it you doubled down on in essence trying to make is seem as if he was lying about his feelings. so you conceded that as well

here is what we know so far from Starlights non interaction As Pendragon himself said

What Starlight points did Starlight fail to defend?

• The assertion that more people want to come to NZ then the US” I showed how that was categorically wrong by using his own numbers.
• Still waiting to get his answer on what a negative liberty is and how it effects how the CATO Institute used it to declare New Zealand the #1 in Freedom.
• Never answer me on my challenge to the our getting mad if our Constitution was not the best because another country copied and improved it. Instead, when I informed him that I never sad that he doubled down on his assertion again trying to prove his superiority. Never produced the post where I or any one else said we’d be mad. as far as I can see he did not back off from this one.
• He never challenges my assertion and historical explanation that His comment about the founders having slaves, and I was a moron (like I did not know about the slaves). My assertion was that he was over simplifying the Issues around Slaver and the Constitution.
• And as I stated before he blowup his own assertion that NZ has never had slavery.

So, in short here is what we can say:

• The more people wish to live under the US Constitution then New Zealand or Canada system.
• New Zealand is not the freest County in the world.
• The only saying any thing about being mad about the US Constitution not being #1 is starlight
• New Zealand did have slaves.
• And the point to Starlight I know next to nothing about New Zealand History, which was not debatable because I stated that up front. That being said it looks like in our exchanges Starlight “won the non-battle and lost the war”.

As you can see in not addressing any of the history, math, etc points that The Pendragon made Starlight has admitted he is not the expert he pretends to be on the Subject of America, it's history, politics etc. Any protestation he makes to the contrary is just hot air.

[RumTumTugger]

Oops.

it is an easy mistake to make Watermelon seems to be cut out from the same cloth as Starlight regarding law.

[rogue06]

It’s the old slavery trope. Under your logic(?) all Australians are Criminals because it started as a penal colony, therefore their Governmental system is flawed because it was created by criminals. As with a lot things it is not as simple as you are trying to make it.

First off, I said “The US Constitution was born from revolution, and the cry of freedom not just for some but Freedom for all” This is true. Here is my citation Declaration of Independence it is our decoration as to why we fought against England. Let me just lift the sentence that describes why we were fighting (I know it’s hard for starlight read past the first paragraph in a citation).

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

Now the fact that some liberal States owned slaves (and had black slave owners and breeders) and some (not all) founders owned slaves. Some fought hard against slavery. This is a terrible blot on our history and most (almost all) Americans would agree with that this was wrong. The owning of slave was not as wide spread as the liberal. There where Free black in the north.

Short history lesson: One of the most heated battles in the first Continental Congress was over slavery (I am assuming that you know this is where we got the Constitution), the debate was one of the most heated debates, with the slave state threatening to crash the whole government process before it got started, so a compromise was. Jefferson was adamant opponent against slavery and put wording into the Declaration of Independence that allowed Lincoln to free the slaves, I’d give a citation but this something I learn in school before Stardark was born.

Further, many of the Founding Fathers spent a great deal of time and even personal wealth fighting against allowing slavery into the opening Midwestern territories over the decades after the founding of the country.

They were aware that they were forced into a Devil's Deal in order to get the Southern colonies to join in the Revolution (without them the effort was doomed to fail) much in the same way the Allies had to work with Stalin and the Soviets during WWII to defeat Hitler. And just like the West realized we were merely putting off an eventual confrontation with the Soviet Union (which enslaved a large portion of Eastern Europe at the end of WWII) they knew that slavery had to be dealt with and abolished as well^[1]. But in the mean time they were dead set against allowing slavery to spread any further than they could keep it from spreading.




1. Thank God ending the Soviet Union and freeing Eastern Europe didn't have to end in a blood-drenched confrontation like our Civil War did to end slavery.

[Watermelon]

I believe you told me in one of your rebuttals to my posts that you where a Lawyer and knew the law, to assert your expertise on the subject over mine. (Did not say that you where an Australian Lawyer). I seem to to remember MM was also surprised that you where an Australian lawyer and others on the tread also argued with you assuming you where a US lawyer. I did consulted people with accrual US legal expertise and they did disagree with your views on evidence.

The fact is that the legal systems are similar, not the same. From what you where arguing on that tread and here in this post you are assuming that the rules are the same. Similar or essentially mean different.

As you said you are not an expert on American Law, so how can you insist that the rules of evidence are the same? Their are details that you will miss because you apply your rule of evidence to another country and those details are what were being argued. I have no doubt about your Credentials as an Australian Lawyer and If I needed a Lawyer in Australia you are at the top of my list, but would never want you to defend me in a US court, it's the little details that get you in legal battles.

I do want to say again, I admire your knowledge in Australian Law you look like a great lawyer "in Australia".

It's not about differences between American and Australian law, I can and did read the US federal rules of evidence when writing those posts. Hearsay and its exceptions are the same in America and Australia. I was explaining how hearsay evidence works because you and other Trump supporters were claiming that the impeachment witness testimonies were all hearsay and not admissible in court. It was a claim that Trump supporters were just repeating because Trump tweeted it so they believed it. It was an area I had knowledge in so I made a good faith effort to try and explain how it works and whether it would apply to the impeachment witnesses. I explained that there were exceptions to the hearsay rule and provided facts of the leading case to explain how legal reasoning. You used the fact that it wasnt an American case to dismiss it.

On multiple occasions I tried to discuss any specific examples of hearsay to see whether exceptions might apply but no specific examples were provided. It turned out that not a single 'its all hearsay!' claimant really knew how hearsay worked. Or even how evidence worked. The same people were claiming there was no evidence because most witnesses had never spoken directly to Trump and the one that did testified that Trump said no quid pro quo. This was frequently repeated as if it meant something. The only thing it meant was that the people claiming it didn't understand how evidence worked. They had this absurd belief that unless someone testified they had directly been told by Trump that he wanted a quid pro quo, it wasn't admissible as evidence.

I explained how evidence is used to prove crime in court (how crimes are proved if elements are met - elements are satisfied by facts - facts are established by evidence) because its required to understand hearsay since it describes a particular evidence/fact but it was going nowhere because Trump was tweeting new excuses and claims every day.

Maybe you should speak to one of the thousands of US legal experts that signed onto that open letter that said the evidence is clear that Trump committed impeachable conduct.

[rogue06]

It's not about differences between American and Australian law, I can and did read the US federal rules of evidence when writing those posts. Hearsay and its exceptions are the same in America and Australia. I was explaining how hearsay evidence works because you and other Trump supporters were claiming that the impeachment witness testimonies were all hearsay and not admissible in court. It was a claim that Trump supporters were just repeating because Trump tweeted it so they believed it. It was an area I had knowledge in so I made a good faith effort to try and explain how it works and whether it would apply to the impeachment witnesses. I explained that there were exceptions to the hearsay rule and provided facts of the leading case to explain how legal reasoning. You used the fact that it wasnt an American case to dismiss it.

On multiple occasions I tried to discuss any specific examples of hearsay to see whether exceptions might apply but no specific examples were provided. It turned out that not a single 'its all hearsay!' claimant really knew how hearsay worked. Or even how evidence worked. The same people were claiming there was no evidence because most witnesses had never spoken directly to Trump and the one that did testified that Trump said no quid pro quo. This was frequently repeated as if it meant something. The only thing it meant was that the people claiming it didn't understand how evidence worked. They had this absurd belief that unless someone testified they had directly been told by Trump that he wanted a quid pro quo, it wasn't admissible as evidence.

I explained how evidence is used to prove crime in court (how crimes are proved if elements are met - elements are satisfied by facts - facts are established by evidence) because its required to understand hearsay since it describes a particular evidence/fact but it was going nowhere because Trump was tweeting new excuses and claims every day.

Maybe you should speak to one of the thousands of US legal experts that signed onto that open letter that said the evidence is clear that Trump committed impeachable conduct.

Hearsay is admissible under some very strict circumstances but I don't think it has ever been allowed when it was second and third hand -- effectively "heard it through the grapevine" water cooler gossip.