Trump's disdain for data & analytics

Quote: Evenbob

That was deemed the fairest trial ever held.

I won't say the trial was unfair but I think the jury was voted "not guilty" as payback for Rodney King. The trial of the century was a waste of time. As I wrote before, OJ won the case in the jury selection.

Quote: Wizard

I won't say the trial was unfair but I think the jury was voted "not guilty" as payback for Rodney King. The trial of the century was a waste of time. As I wrote before, OJ won the case in the jury selection.

If you want to see race relations set back 50 years, just wait until OJ confesses as has been alluded to. I agree with you on the jury selection thing.

Quote: Wizard

I won't say the trial was unfair but I think the jury was voted "not guilty" as payback for Rodney King. The trial of the century was a waste of time. As I wrote before, OJ won the case in the jury selection.

I watched a great deal of that trial and followed it in a fair degree of depth (remember TIME and Newsweek??) The defense lucked out with:

1) Very bad handling of the crime scene
2) A racist cop on the case
3) A rather incompetent prosecution team which was as interested in grandstanding for the cameras as in securing a conviction

And of course the legal "dream team" was diligent in exploiting the process as much as they could. While OJ is a vile defendant, a zealous defense is the duty of a defense lawyer. It's hard to blame them for doing their job as prescribed.

Quote: Nareed

I watched a great deal of that trial and followed it in a fair degree of depth (remember TIME and Newsweek??) The defense lucked out with:

1) Very bad handling of the crime scene
2) A racist cop on the case
3) A rather incompetent prosecution team which was as interested in grandstanding for the cameras as in securing a conviction

And of course the legal "dream team" was diligent in exploiting the process as much as they could. While OJ is a vile defendant, a zealous defense is the duty of a defense lawyer. It's hard to blame them for doing their job as prescribed.

I totally agree
Even the judge made a huge mistake
The defense knew they had 1 problem juror that would surely vote guilty
They got that juror thrown out due to some bogus BS and unfortunately the judge agreed
Ito was a terrible judge. He bent over backwards for OJ's lawyers to prove he had no bias against OJ.

Law Professor Backs Trump’s Charge of Judicial Bias

Quote: AZDuffman

Open borders and amnesty is extreme and will not work. Making life intolerable for illegals will work. Deportations will work. The problem is liberals love illegal immigration. Certain business owners love it, too. We have made it intolerable with deportations before and can do so again. Amnesty was tried in the 1980s and clearly failed.

Shutting them out of the banking system alone would go a huge way. Serious punishment for employers will as well. Have a guest worker program for agriculture seasonally, but otherwise make it hurt. Make the $5 you save an hour not worth the risk. No jobs and they will stop coming. Prohibit them from getting welfare. Prohibit them from schools and colleges. IOW, treat them more like Mexico treats people there illegally!

Illegal aliens getting welfare, banking and other stuff is a mystery to me... pretty much everywhere else the whole point of immigration status is to let you have access to those things... and without them you are hooped. I have no idea what the rate of illegal employment is in Canada, but I bet it's nothing like that in the US. Of course, only having one land border helps.

I can't get a health check up or a bank account without a social insurance number. Other benefits require several forms of ID to get, and as a legal immigrant, I had to show them on a regular basis to function with any arm of the government.

I guess the US is a different country :)

Legal immigration into the US a huge issue, too. There's a massive need for IT workers in the US, a skill shortage in US citizens, and a real problem getting immigration papers for qualified, skilled workers. Basically the system is upside down. Too easy to immigrate illegally for low paying work and heavy reliance on welfare systems, too hard to immigrate legally for high paying, net benefit work. In most EU countries, immigration is a net benefit to the economy. I believe the same is true in Canada. There's a reason for that... immigration that requires some level of commitment tends to result in the hard working, more entrepreneurial people applying, because they are now somewhere they want to be.

Quote: Nareed

I watched a great deal of that trial and followed it in a fair degree of depth (remember TIME and Newsweek??) The defense lucked out with:

1) Very bad handling of the crime scene
2) A racist cop on the case
3) A rather incompetent prosecution team which was as interested in grandstanding for the cameras as in securing a conviction

And of course the legal "dream team" was diligent in exploiting the process as much as they could. While OJ is a vile defendant, a zealous defense is the duty of a defense lawyer. It's hard to blame them for doing their job as prescribed.

I agree with you. It is any attorney's job to get the best deal for his client. OJ's team, especially Johnny, did an outstanding job. However, I think he would have won anyway with even an average attorney.

If I were on the jury I would have still had plenty of evidence for guilt even if you tossed out everything that was tainted.

One thing you may not have picked up on strongly if you didn't live here is that the trial was not long after the Rodney King beating and riots. The whole thing was still very much on the minds of everybody, especially the black community in Los Angeles. It was the elephant in the courtroom that nobody mentioned.

Quote: TheCesspit

In most EU countries, immigration is a net benefit to the economy. I believe the same is true in Canada. There's a reason for that... immigration that requires some level of commitment tends to result in the hard working, more entrepreneurial people applying, because they are now somewhere they want to be.

Immigration is a net benefit to all economies, because all economies benefit from a rational allocation of resources. Immigration allows labor to move where there's more demand for workers. Barriers to immigration reduces the rationality of labor resources by making it harder for workers to go where they are needed.

You'd think people who profess a belief in free markets, would be opposed to immigration restrictions.

Quote: Wizard

If I were on the jury I would have still had plenty of evidence for guilt even if you tossed out everything that was tainted.

From my own memories of the time, I wasn't certain there was enough evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." And that's without considering the judge's instructions to the jury. That is, reasonable people could differ.

Of course Simpson was guilty. But the law says you only consider evidence and testimony as presented at trial.

Quote:

One thing you may not have picked up on strongly if you didn't live here is that the trial was not long after the Rodney King beating and riots. The whole thing was still very much on the minds of everybody, especially the black community in Los Angeles. It was the elephant in the courtroom that nobody mentioned.

I know all about it. I watched the riots live on TV, too.

What i don't know is exactly how bad the prosecution was in the Rodney King trial. The media were negligent in 1) overplaying the infamous video and 2) underplaying the actual trial while it was going on.

Quote: AZDuffman

The "autopsy" was a total joke. It basically told the GOP to say they love illegal immigration and give up on all their issues. It was just more advice from the people who lost the election for them to collect fees while they lose more elections.

According to the autopsy, in 2004 George W. Bush received 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 43 percent of the Asian vote. Liberals often mocked Bush as being stupid, but the liberals were 100% wrong: Bush & Rove had figured out that this is how you win elections, you strive to appeal to a wide swath of voters from a variety of backgrounds. If you put all your eggs in one demographic basket, you can't win. In 2012, Romney got just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote and just 26 percent of the Asian vote.

It'll be tough for Trump to win over Hispanics after referring to them as a bunch of rapists. It will be tough for Trump to win over blacks & Jews when he says: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

He doesn't need to be polite ("politically correct") if his goal is to be a private citizen. But if his goal is to win an election he needs to be polite.

Quote: AZDuffman

I will say it again, the Democrats NEVER EVER EVER give up on their issues after an election loss no matter how much of a wipe-out it was.

News flash: Democrats flip-flop all the time. How many different positions has Hillary (or Obama) taken on gay marriage? They twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify their inconsistency.

You can make the argument that their insincerity on gay marriage is appalling, their willingness to pander is spineless and pathetic. But if the guy who panders to Hispanics, Jews, and gays gets to pick the next 2 Supreme Court Justices, isn't a little pandering worth it?