4 ms·

Yes, and therefore subject to pressure from the political parties that support them.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Therefore... what? Only independents can be attorneys general? Can be judges? Or nobody can be judges? Your observation is true, and yet, we kind of need to keep a civilization running, and for that we need courts and stuff. What kind of plan do you have for how things would be different, and will it actually work in the real world?
- leereeves 2y ago
  Of course I don't have a plan for eliminating all dirty politics, nor do I think it's possible. But we can certainly remember that dirty politics exists and be wary of it.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Great, but you should have more when making charges of bias and corruption than "he's a Democrat, therefore dirty". When we say someone like a prosecutor is "independent" it means they are not directed by a superior. Bragg is not directed by the mayor of NY, the governor of NY, the AG, or the President. He may be a Democrat, but he's still independent (lower case "i"). If you come in and call him a "Democrat" when someone else calls him independent, you are implying he is a Democrat before anything else, and his actions are driven by allegiance to the party. That's not true. So can you tell us anything specifically that Bragg did that was not independent, where he was directed by Biden or Democrats? Or did he prosecute Trump as the law directed him to?
    - leereeves 2y ago
      > Or did he prosecute Trump as the law directed him to? Clearly not. He essentially said "We have to get Trump" before he even found a crime to charge him with. Then invented a "novel legal theory" to prosecute him.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > He essentially said "We have to get Trump" Going to need a source for this. Every source people have pulled up for me so far attempting to "prove" this has Bragg saying something to the effect of "I will follow the facts where they take me". Maybe you have a different source? > Then invented a "novel legal theory" to prosecute him. You mean he applied the facts to the law and brought a prosecution where he thought a crime had been committed, as is his job as DA. Can you explain why "inventing a novel legal theory" is wrong or indicative of bias? Or evidence that Bragg is somehow controlled or not independent?
        leereeves 2y ago
        Ok, I looked it up. His exact words were "we have to hold him accountable". That's a declaration of intent to target Trump. And he listed his long experience of opposing Trump administration policies. "I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times... So I know that work". Notice he said "Trump administration" - that was political opposition, he was suing to oppose Trump's policies. Even in his previous position, he was a political opponent of Trump, and used his office to pursue political goals. That's clearly bias. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/12/heres-what-manhattan-district-attorney-alvin-bragg/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/12/heres-what-ma... > Can you explain why "inventing a novel legal theory" is wrong or indicative of bias? Because legal changes should not be retroactive. If something is currently illegal, it doesn't require a "novel legal theory" to prosecute. Novel legal theory is just a way of saying "let's change the way the law is interpreted or enforced". And that's fine, as long as it's only enforced after the change is made public.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        > Ok, I looked it up. His exact words were "we have to hold him accountable". That's a declaration of intent to target Trump. That's a declaration of intent to prosecute Trump for what he did. That's the difference between "hold him accountable" and "get him".
        2y ago
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  Independent AI. Pure algocratic justice.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    Even AI has bias from its training data sets, as we've seen from the NUMEROUS controversies of racism and sexism from AI (like ChatGPT) over the last 2 years. The universe, and its circumstances, has itself a bias towards occurrences we believe to be unfair. Old news.
    - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
      True, but I imagined GOFAI -- algorithms you can read and write. Something like an expert system. Not LLM "AI". You seriously wouldn't want to trust your freedom and the nation's fate on confabulatory black box neural nets that nobody can understand, right? ;p

Therefore... what? Only independents can be attorneys general? Can be judges? Or nobody can be judges? Your observation is true, and yet, we kind of need to keep a civilization running, and for that we need courts and stuff. What kind of plan do you have for how things would be different, and will it actually work in the real world?

leereeves 2y ago
Of course I don't have a plan for eliminating all dirty politics, nor do I think it's possible. But we can certainly remember that dirty politics exists and be wary of it.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Great, but you should have more when making charges of bias and corruption than "he's a Democrat, therefore dirty". When we say someone like a prosecutor is "independent" it means they are not directed by a superior. Bragg is not directed by the mayor of NY, the governor of NY, the AG, or the President. He may be a Democrat, but he's still independent (lower case "i"). If you come in and call him a "Democrat" when someone else calls him independent, you are implying he is a Democrat before anything else, and his actions are driven by allegiance to the party. That's not true. So can you tell us anything specifically that Bragg did that was not independent, where he was directed by Biden or Democrats? Or did he prosecute Trump as the law directed him to?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    > Or did he prosecute Trump as the law directed him to? Clearly not. He essentially said "We have to get Trump" before he even found a crime to charge him with. Then invented a "novel legal theory" to prosecute him.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > He essentially said "We have to get Trump" Going to need a source for this. Every source people have pulled up for me so far attempting to "prove" this has Bragg saying something to the effect of "I will follow the facts where they take me". Maybe you have a different source? > Then invented a "novel legal theory" to prosecute him. You mean he applied the facts to the law and brought a prosecution where he thought a crime had been committed, as is his job as DA. Can you explain why "inventing a novel legal theory" is wrong or indicative of bias? Or evidence that Bragg is somehow controlled or not independent?
      - leereeves 2y ago
        Ok, I looked it up. His exact words were "we have to hold him accountable". That's a declaration of intent to target Trump. And he listed his long experience of opposing Trump administration policies. "I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times... So I know that work". Notice he said "Trump administration" - that was political opposition, he was suing to oppose Trump's policies. Even in his previous position, he was a political opponent of Trump, and used his office to pursue political goals. That's clearly bias. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/12/heres-what-manhattan-district-attorney-alvin-bragg/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/12/heres-what-ma... > Can you explain why "inventing a novel legal theory" is wrong or indicative of bias? Because legal changes should not be retroactive. If something is currently illegal, it doesn't require a "novel legal theory" to prosecute. Novel legal theory is just a way of saying "let's change the way the law is interpreted or enforced". And that's fine, as long as it's only enforced after the change is made public.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        > Ok, I looked it up. His exact words were "we have to hold him accountable". That's a declaration of intent to target Trump. That's a declaration of intent to prosecute Trump for what he did. That's the difference between "hold him accountable" and "get him".
        2y ago
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
Independent AI. Pure algocratic justice.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  Even AI has bias from its training data sets, as we've seen from the NUMEROUS controversies of racism and sexism from AI (like ChatGPT) over the last 2 years. The universe, and its circumstances, has itself a bias towards occurrences we believe to be unfair. Old news.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    True, but I imagined GOFAI -- algorithms you can read and write. Something like an expert system. Not LLM "AI". You seriously wouldn't want to trust your freedom and the nation's fate on confabulatory black box neural nets that nobody can understand, right? ;p