Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
In regular court, "montages" aren't admissible evidence
So I'll skip the rest of it for now, not because I'm ignoring it, but because I don't have any contrary to the matter at this point; I read it and understand where you're coming from. Some of the stuff I'm questioning but don't want to google points about it right now due to being on my way to bed (such as the fact that certain segments of the police force were intentionally restricted from the area, leading to the slow response).
However how many times do people need to be explained that this isn't regular court. Points like have entirely no place here. Appeals to regular judical process has absolutely no connection to this issue. It's like me yelling about medieval Ukranian agriculture if I'm served a bad soup.
Also, I'm unsure what your endgoal is. Let's say you understand that arguments for what regular court is don't apply, but you want to change that. Do you want to change the constitution? Your appeal to "standards" is so damn vague. "Standards" is a plus word thrown around to appeal to certain people, but have so often very little concrete bearing, as is here. Like, if we say we need standards... Impeachment is incredibly rare to begin with, and if you don't understand how it shows up as a tool when people like Trump are elected, idk.
What is your concrete idea of what impeachment should be like? Ideally getting around the fact that the presidential branch can legislate at will, technically being able to prevent impeachment from being legal due to just ruling something is legal.
Also, have no idea what you're getting at by """"putting quotation marks"""" around """"montages""""". Is it some kind of ironic distancing? You know what a montage is, right? It's not inherently good or bad by virtue of being a montage. It's literally just a video edited a certain way. Whether they're admissible or not have nothing to do with being """""""""""""""montages""""""""""""""" so I'm unsure how much you want to get out of it.
When you use quotation marks like this, it's usually to infer that something isn't something. Such as saying that they served me "soup", you infer it's not real soup, or has no place to be soup. But this was a montage, no? Whether it bears weight or not? So, uh, why the marks? Do you believe it's not a montage?
Like I'm just over here understanding you don't like the Kuleshov of it all, but his whole point was that montages were manipulative simply due to the power of editing. Montages are inherently manipulative, so it doesn't need quotation marks to support where you're coming from. Or what's your point? I'm just a bit wat.
Last edited: