Difference between revisions of "Forensic politics"
(Forensic jurisprudence, or more simply forensic law, is a field of analyzing a judge or potential judge's prior work in order to infer how he or she will decide in future cases.) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
As the influence of [[dark money]] and its mega-donors increases over politics, this field of forensic politics grows in significance. | As the influence of [[dark money]] and its mega-donors increases over politics, this field of forensic politics grows in significance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Paxton Impeachment == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Obviously scripted, the ambush sham [[Paxton Impeachment|impeachment of Ken Paxton]] raises questions of who was behind it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A forensic analysis strongly suggests that Abbott was behind the Paxton impeachment, and is making the Senate trial a sham. Here's the evidence: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Abbott controls an [[Texas oligarchy|oligarchy]] of 39 mega-donors who write million-dollar campaign contributions in Texas, where there is no limit. | ||
| + | * Abbott has been oddly quiet about this issue, even after Trump criticized him for being silent. | ||
| + | * last year's primary challenge by Allen West to Abbott shook him up a bit; Paxton has become his chief rival. | ||
| + | * Abbott, ineffective on policy, needs stunts to keep his oligarchy on board with him, like his alien-bus-trip PR | ||
| + | * in his 9th year in office, Abbott has become a real tyrant, yet lost to us on the Convention of States issue | ||
| + | * Abbott quickly appointed a loyalist of Abbott as Paxton's interim successor, rather than [[George P. Bush]] who was the [[GOP]] runner-up in the primary | ||
| + | * the [[show trial]] in the Texas senate is being made a sham by Abbott loyalists | ||
| + | |||
== Forensic jurisprudence == | == Forensic jurisprudence == | ||
Forensic jurisprudence, or more simply forensic law, is a field of analyzing a judge or potential judge's prior work in order to infer how he or she will decide in future cases. | Forensic jurisprudence, or more simply forensic law, is a field of analyzing a judge or potential judge's prior work in order to infer how he or she will decide in future cases. | ||
[[category:politics]] | [[category:politics]] | ||
Revision as of 03:10, June 6, 2023
Forensic politics is the field of analyzing political events in a logical or scientific way in order to deduce the true causes and motivations. It is analogous to the use of forensics in other fields, except applying it to politics.
As the influence of dark money and its mega-donors increases over politics, this field of forensic politics grows in significance.
Paxton Impeachment
Obviously scripted, the ambush sham impeachment of Ken Paxton raises questions of who was behind it.
A forensic analysis strongly suggests that Abbott was behind the Paxton impeachment, and is making the Senate trial a sham. Here's the evidence:
- Abbott controls an oligarchy of 39 mega-donors who write million-dollar campaign contributions in Texas, where there is no limit.
- Abbott has been oddly quiet about this issue, even after Trump criticized him for being silent.
- last year's primary challenge by Allen West to Abbott shook him up a bit; Paxton has become his chief rival.
- Abbott, ineffective on policy, needs stunts to keep his oligarchy on board with him, like his alien-bus-trip PR
- in his 9th year in office, Abbott has become a real tyrant, yet lost to us on the Convention of States issue
- Abbott quickly appointed a loyalist of Abbott as Paxton's interim successor, rather than George P. Bush who was the GOP runner-up in the primary
- the show trial in the Texas senate is being made a sham by Abbott loyalists
Forensic jurisprudence
Forensic jurisprudence, or more simply forensic law, is a field of analyzing a judge or potential judge's prior work in order to infer how he or she will decide in future cases.