"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."
- Nancy Pelosi
I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.I don't suppose if Trump makes a good decision it will be included in one of your posts? :) I didn't vote for this clown, but it is possible something good might slip by.
"It's curious and a little bit humorous that Democrats would talk about anything bipartisan ... given how they have vowed to obstruct everything we do." - Kellyanne Conway
Source: Conway dismisses need for independent hack probe, says Trump may reconsider sanctions on Russia (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/conway-trump-russia-probe-congress-hacking-obama/96338952/)
This just gets more and more ridiculous. Trump will appoint Robert Kennedy Jr., noted antivaxxer kook to head a committee on "vaccine safety."
Yes, I never thought I'd live to see the day when the GOP was the party who thought the Russians were our official cuddle-buddies, and only nasty hawk-types could distrust their intentions.
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.What on Terra are you fuxxing talking about? Ranting is all well and good, but sometimes rants make people look less than rational (to be civil).
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.Do you have any evidence of fascistic posting by the regulars here?
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?WTF does this mean? Pure ranting as far as I can tell.
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.Once again, WTF does this mean? Pure ranting as far as I can tell... again.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.Read my last two replies.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.1) I didn't vote for the Trumpster, 2) I suspect - but don't know - that most of the regulars here didn't either, and 3) stick your neo-Nazi accusations where the sun don't shine.
It's been a while since I've stopped by the Order of the Swastika, so I thought I'd see how everyone is doing. Looks like not much has changed.
Must be a sad day for the people here. For the Americans who for years had no problem with, or actively supported, assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and the war on journalism, as long as you got health care - looks like you won't be getting health care anymore. The families of your victims must be crying their eyes out at the thought that the people who have no problem killing then won't get their subsidised health care. Is there no justice in the world?
For the obedient colonists in Canada and Europe, who look the other way at the terroristic activities of certain other presidential candidates, because she wasn't bombing you - we'll discover if Canada and Europe stay off limits to Americans "fighting for their freedom". If so, we'll also discover if your attitudes towards assassination change when the victims are white instead of brown.
And don't forget, the person bringing you this message must be a Trump supporter, because according to Retard Logic, Trump supporters are the only people who wouldn't want to queue up to suck your glorious neo-Nazi ****s.
Congratulations, justice will soon be served to a group of truly evil people. The problem is, your punishment will be inflicted on everyone else, too.
If I am parsing your post correctly, you think this forum's membership is entirely made up of Trump supporters, and that makes us all neo-Nazis?
[snip]
Has anyone else been following the confirmation hearings? Looks like my kids' education is about to be in the hands of a woman whose only qualification is that her family has donated some $200 million to the Republican Party over the years.
People who can land a vehicle on Mars and keep it running for 13 years do not deserve to be dictated to by a total f***ing idiot."
I wouldn't have voted for this clown for dog catcher, but I thought his campaign rhetoric was probably a bunch of radical crazy populist B.S.; but once elected and in office, I thought cooler, saner heads would prevail. It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.
I wouldn't have voted for this clown for dog catcher, but I thought his campaign rhetoric was probably a bunch of radical crazy populist B.S.; but once elected and in office, I thought cooler, saner heads would prevail. It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.
Whose saner heads, though? Since basically no one was willing to stand up to him during the campaign, who was left to do it once he was in power?
I wonder why he is so oddly specific about the location it was shot.
Also 'the moon landing video'? like only one video from a single camera was made... which is wrong. The Apollo 11 LEM and EVA had two video camera's, SSTV live feed camera and 16mm film camera.
Not that it will make a difference, but it is rather entertaining watching the numbers tick over on this petition to Parliament.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928
Well, I've signed it and I know several other people who have too. They send you an e-mail link to click to prove that your address is genuine.
It's apparently genuine. Theresa May so far says she'll ignore it because it's just "populist".
I don't understand - courts issue a stay of the immigration ban, and DHS says, "Bleep you, we're keeping it in place anyway." What happened to rule of law?
I've been trying to explain to the friend of a friend why I think the ban is unconstitutional. She insists it isn't because the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.
I've been trying to explain to the friend of a friend why I think the ban is unconstitutional. She insists it isn't because the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.
Point out to her that, if this were true, then resident non-citizens would be free to violate the Constitution with impunity because it doesn't apply to them.
A New Order?
They really do lack any sense of irony, don't they.
A denial of denialism, if that isn't too circular. All the more frightening as it is spoken by what appear to be educated people otherwise capable of putting a logical argument together.
(I am much heartened I haven't seen that kind of poster here.)
Have a high-tech company? Hope you can find all your specialists in the U.S., because Trump's going to get rid of all those pesky immigrants. http://www.salon.com/2017/02/02/first-they-came-for-the-muslims-trumps-next-targets-may-include-poor-immigrants-and-highly-paid-ones/
As I said "It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.".I wouldn't have voted for this clown for dog catcher, but I thought his campaign rhetoric was probably a bunch of radical crazy populist B.S.; but once elected and in office, I thought cooler, saner heads would prevail. It looks like I was very, very, very self deluded.
Whose saner heads, though? Since basically no one was willing to stand up to him during the campaign, who was left to do it once he was in power?
Mr Trump used an address to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington — normally a solemn occasion — to ask the audience to "pray for" new Apprentice host Schwarzenegger to improve the show's ratings.
Check out Schwarzenegger's response.
I didn't vote for him for governor here in California, but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how moderate he was despite being a Republican. Maybe that's because he knew he can't actually have any higher aspirations (i.e., for Donald Trump's job).
I've stayed out of this discussion, mainly because I'm a brit and not directly involvedThere isn't a single human being anywhere on or near this planet that isn't directly affected by this.
(I'm planning on visiting in August for the eclipse, so hopefully things will have calmed down a bit by then...)
I'm visiting the US in March and am very nervous. I have Iraqi stamps in my passport because of work from a few years ago. I had to get a visa because of this. But now I'm worried about being detained for hours in the airport on the arrival. US immigration was bad enough at the best of times and these aren't the best of times.How hard would it be to get a new/second passport?
We're heading to Wyoming - big clear (hopefully) skies, and a chance to visit Yellowstone and Grand Teton. It should be a good eclipse.
(I'm planning on visiting in August for the eclipse, so hopefully things will have calmed down a bit by then...)
I have my flights booked and hotels, I´m staying in Florida and doing a three day trip to South Carolina for the Eclipse.
Problem is my visa is in my current one. In retrospect, I probably should have done that once I'd finished with my work there.I'm visiting the US in March and am very nervous. I have Iraqi stamps in my passport because of work from a few years ago. I had to get a visa because of this. But now I'm worried about being detained for hours in the airport on the arrival. US immigration was bad enough at the best of times and these aren't the best of times.How hard would it be to get a new/second passport?
I know that Americans can do this if they have Israeli visa stamps when they need to visit an Arab country. It only makes sense that other countries could do the same to get around US foolishness.
...In other words, the U.S. has lost an ally in the war against terror. Well done, old boy!
Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.
Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral "pre-briefing" from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.
Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, two of the sources said. Reuters was unable to determine if Trump received a briefing from his national security adviser Michael Flynn.
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
He's a pretty good rebuttal to all those people who look at conspiracy theory debunkers and ask why we bother.
It's like conversations with HBs on this board where we will argue the actual details and they will crow on about being badly treated. It's terrifying to see this kind of thing from actual world leaders!
Well, my understanding is that President Trump is a believer of several conspiracies claims; the shocking thing is that, like you say, he acts on the world stage pretty much like we would expect a rabid CT / HB to act if they were on a internet forum.
He's a pretty good rebuttal to all those people who look at conspiracy theory debunkers and ask why we bother.
That's one down... who will be next?There goes another...
Flynn resigns amid controversy over Russia contacts (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/index.html?sr=fbCNN021417michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/index.html0423AMStoryLink&linkId=34467748)
When I was a kid, the Russians always seemed to have "fishing trawlers" in international waters off the US coast, especially near areas like central Florida. I hadn't heard about this for some time, but neither had I heard that they stopped.
This week he signed Resolution 38 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/trump-signs-measure-blocking-obama-era-rule-to-protect-streams) which overturns a law passed in December last year that stopped coal mining firms from dumping spill and pollution into streams.
Maybe they will support impeachment if it means it will improve their own chances of re-election. Otherwise they might just get tossed out in two years.
Maybe they will support impeachment if it means it will improve their own chances of re-election. Otherwise they might just get tossed out in two years.
We're doing our best here to toss out Jason Chaffetz.
Chaffetz' committee has oversight responsibility for the executive, but simply refuses to exercise it over Trump with respect to his conflicts of interest.
To paraphrase Rand Paul, "Republicans don't investigate other Republicans." That seems to be the conventional partisan wisdom so far. We'll get no meaningful oversight so long as partisan politics overshadow constitutional checks and balances.
The only way a GOP Congress would impeach President Trump is if he were to do something so treasonous as to make it inevitable political suicide to continue to support him.
So no law that prevents industry from polluting rivers can ever be implemented in the future? That's ridiculous.
We have the principle that no Parliament can bind future Parliaments.
Side note, happy belated [birthday], Jay. Are you not on Facebook anymore?
Even the Constitution can be amended. This doesn't sound right. Do you mean those rules can't be introduced under the current law but Congress could pass a new law?
I've been watching the news reports of the anger being expressed at GOP town halls, and it is reassuring to me that people are speaking up and resisting. But I do worry that it will lose steam before the next election.
The "party first, country second" attitude is so frustrating to me. It's not just limited to the Republicans, or even the United States...
I was skeptical that the "checks and balances" were going to be effective when Republicans basically control everything, so it was reassuring that the courts blocked the travel ban.
The only way a GOP Congress would impeach President Trump is if he were to do something so treasonous as to make it inevitable political suicide to continue to support him.
It sure sounds like if the intelligence agencies keep digging they will find something treasonous.
Sensible. Facebook is the devil's plaything run by Lex Luthor.Side note, happy belated [birthday], Jay. Are you not on Facebook anymore?
No, I no longer use Facebook, but thanks for the good wishes.
As to checks and balances, they were formulated long before the two-party situation developed.I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1803, that revised the procedures for electing the President and Vice President.
I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...
Sounds like they were maybe a wee bit naive.I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...
Yes, you make a good point. I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power. Clearly partisanship took an early foothold. But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated. Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.
Sounds like they were maybe a wee bit naive.
I heard it say that America is a monarchy with an elected king while Britain is a republic with a hereditary president. Apparently that was said by an American journalist in the late 19th century.
I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...
Yes, you make a good point. I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power. Clearly partisanship took an early foothold. But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated. Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.
But in the USA, where each state elects only two Senators, there isn't much chance for minor parties to be elected.
...and it may well be that the colonial leaders were a little out of touch with how far British system had moved.
It's a truly British thing of just fudging and making do. Everyone agrees it needs to change, but no-one agrees to what.
...to see if the UK lasts out the next decade.
There is no way this Administration will last four years.
...his whole Twitter fiasco is nothing more than a puppet-show on stage whilst the truly nefarious deals are being done in the shadows of the wings.
But really what we need to discuss with such learned company is was the Louisiana Purchase a case of executive overreach?
I've read that tourism as an industry is taking a serious hit.Me too. And it's really quite ironic, give that it's a major export industry. Many not in percent of our GNP, but certainly large in absolute dollars per year.
Not according to Madison, who placed it squarely within the power of the Executive to negotiate treaties. But ssssh! or else Trump will want to build another couple of walls and make France pay for them.Hey, the German comedian Jan Böhmermann points out that Germany also built a big, beautiful wall and they even made the Russians pay for it!
Speaking of higher education, everybody knows there's a strong correlation between support for Trump and the lack of a college degree. I think I know why this is, and it's not the extra education per se.
It's that many young people meet foreigners -- lots of 'em -- for the very first time when they go to college. When I was a Cornell undergrad in the 1970s, I had fellow students from practically every country in the world, but especially (pre-revolutionary) Iran, China and India. You quickly accept them as fellow students who just happen to look a little different and speak English a little differently (although that part could be a problem).
Many people without the benefit of a college degree, especially those who grow up, go to public school and live their entire lives in rural areas, never get that opportunity. And so they (can be made to) fear those they do not know.
There's an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China.I thought it was an old Klingon proverb.
No it's Vulcan. You must be thinking of revenge is a dish best served cold.There's an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon can go to China.I thought it was an old Klingon proverb.
I like to say that higher education is one of this country's most important exports, given how many foreign students you see at almost any university. The rest of the world has always looked to the United States as the world leader in advanced education, basic and applied research and market creation, and they try to send us their best students. That's something we have every right to be proud of. Yet Trump is happily dynamiting all that in the ironic name of "making America great again". Ugh. He has absolutely no idea what made this country great in the first place.We've got a similar situation in the UK, foreign student numbers down since the Brexit vote and also, apparently, fewer UK students going to European universities. This cutting off of links puts all the rhetoric about the UK going to be a great global player into perspective.
The most recent executive order appears intended to just outright destroy any number of agencies. I really don't think it'll hold up in court.
I'm not sure I see all the conservative justices there now as being willing to approve it.
I've read that tourism is already down and likely to decrease further. Which, of course, will hurt the economy and cost jobs, just like everything else from the administration.
I think he deeply believed that Trump was the right choice for the nation. However, my personal opinion is that he glossed over Trump's anti-science stance, which has become more apparent (at least in my eyes). I wonder if Trump's supporters in the scientific fields have been able to reconcile themselves with this.
Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.
Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.
Indeed, but I look at that program at a more basic level. Trying to correlate children's performance in school with food programs certainly has value. But for me the program shows results when kids don't go hungry. You can feed hungry kids in the hopes of boosting their performance in school. But you can also feed hungry kids because it's the right thing to do. You succeed when there are fewer hungry kids. That's how you measure the success of the program.
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending.
Glad to hear that, and still angry for people who aren't that lucky.
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending. Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York. I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid. But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?
Speaking of strange American things, is it a done thing to pay the principle of the bill on card and leave cash for the tip?
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending. Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York. I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid. But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?
To which the likely response would be...
"If the honourable Senator from Washington is asking whether I'm a patriot for my country...if the honourable Senator is asking whether I care about the safety of the people of this country...then I'm proud to say, 'Guilty as charged'. The honourable Senator from Washington may not care about protecting this land of ours, but I and my colleagues do!"
In other words, as soon as you talk about trading off any social welfare program against a military program the response will be to challenge your patriotism regardless of how wasteful or pointless it is, and remain silent about the social welfare program regardless of how beneficial it is.
Seriously, these sorts of speeches and sound-bites just about write themselves (more's the pity).
So basically I did good.
Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending. Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York. I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid. But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?
To which the likely response would be...
"If the honourable Senator from Washington is asking whether I'm a patriot for my country...if the honourable Senator is asking whether I care about the safety of the people of this country...then I'm proud to say, 'Guilty as charged'. The honourable Senator from Washington may not care about protecting this land of ours, but I and my colleagues do!"
In other words, as soon as you talk about trading off any social welfare program against a military program the response will be to challenge your patriotism regardless of how wasteful or pointless it is, and remain silent about the social welfare program regardless of how beneficial it is.
Seriously, these sorts of speeches and sound-bites just about write themselves (more's the pity).
The responses to that sort of chest thumping idiocy also write themselves, but I will resist, as it is not my country (something I am very grateful for)
* Meanwhile, the skepticism about global warming coming from engineers, geologists and certain lobby groups is disturbing, even as the Great Barrier Reef experiences more frequent and serious bleaching events.
So basically I did good.
Yes. Cash tips are further appreciated because there's no paper trail to remind you to report it as income for tax purposes. If you get what I mean.
Well, this is going to be interesting.
I know President Trump doesn't have any type of strategy but I can't say I disagree with his ordering a Syrian strike. Being ex-military, I tend to sometimes favour military options where they are quick and leave the message 'do not poke the tiger!'.
Problem is, if the president asks congress for permission to do a single operation, the target of that operation will get advance knowledge of the operation, and can either hide the intended target, disperse it, or beef up the defenses.
But not a dictator. I don't care why he does it; the point is that he still has to follow the Constitution. And after all, letting Johnson avoid going through Congress got us Vietnam.
Well we vest such a power in the Queen and yet in 65 years she has never done it. So there.The best quality in a leader is the ability to do nothing ever.
Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?
[The founding fathers] were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.
If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
[The founding fathers] were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.
Foolish; selfish, hmm. That reminds me of someone, his name's on the tip of my tongue....
If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place.
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
Forgive my political naivety, but isn't allowing the President to act unilaterally when it comes to military action against any other country because there's too much risk of the plans being leaked if Congressional approval is sought solving the wrong problem? Might even be advantageous if military plans were leaked on all sides, since that would effectively create a military stalemate where no actual shooting or bombardment would happen because everyone knows and is prepared for it, thus rendering it pointless.
Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
It's a tricky one. We used to say that we couldn't negotiate with the IRA too. Or ETA.
If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.
Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place.
Jason its not an "attitude" is reality
Do you really think there was any possibility of negotiating with Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930's? I mean, really?
On September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned to England from the Munich Conference. On the tarmac at Heston Aerodrome, West London, he waved a piece of paper about, and said "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time". He might as well have used it to wipe his arse for all it was worth....in less than 12 months Hitler's invaded Poland and soon after, the war began. Hitler never had any intention of honoring that agreement. He just used the delays yo build up his forces.
Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?
...the Kim regime is dangerous, brutal and petulant but if anything, predictable.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-14/nothing-unpredictable-about-dangerous-north-korea/8444778
Here's an interesting assessment of North Korea, which pretty much tallies with comments I've made in the past over at UM about the current leadership of that delightful country.Quote...the Kim regime is dangerous, brutal and petulant but if anything, predictable.
= = = =
Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.
They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.
Of course, it raises a bunch of questions: What did the American soldiers think of walking the streets with men who'd probably been responsible for the deaths of their own comrades? Was it moral or ethical to take such a mercenary stand in relation to people who'd previously sworn their opposition to the USA?
But this is the problem you get when you treat a group or a country as some sort of eternal enemy and pre-emptively rule out any possibility of negotiation. For one thing, when circumstances dictate that you do have to negotiate with them then you look like a hypocrite (think of the various Western hostages in Lebanon back in the 1980s whose eventual liberation relied on American negotiations with their supposed arch-enemy Iran). For another thing becoming too doctrinaire or belligerent when speaking about a current enemy makes it that much harder to back down later if you need to ask for their assistance. Consider the way Admiral Bill Halsey spoke during World War Two about Japanese people in general, and consider that if his attitude had permeated the American occupation forces in the years after the end of the war, it would have been that much harder to use Japan as a staging post for American and allied forces in South Korea.
That's why, in terms of foreign relations, I think it's better to be a guarded pragmatist - you never know when today's enemy might be a useful ally.
So in that regard (with both North Korea and Syria) I'm fairly positive about Rex Tillerson as Trump's Secretary of State.
Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.
They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.
So it frustrates me when people want to cut a program (any program) which costs money when those programs are easily demonstrated to save a lot more money down the track.
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
QuoteFor example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
A friend or possibly relative of a friend insists that can't be true, because how much can homeless people cost?
Getting people off the streets was calculated to have the following economic benefits per person:
Type of cost Savings per year, per bed
Health cost: $8,429
Reduced crime: $6,182
Individual costs: $6,500
Improved human capital: $4,236
Other: $268
Total: $25,615
Another demonstration of Realpolitik comes from examining the claims of those who talk about a Muslim-Christian culture war. Such a culture war exists only to the extent that it serves the agenda of those who claim the culture war's existence.
Consider the Coalition from the First Gulf War - USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, etc etc. Plenty of Muslim countries which saw their interests better served by aligning themselves with the Crusaders than with their fellow Muslims.
During World War One, Germany and Austria-Hungary had no problems aligning themselves with Ottoman Turkey, and religious figures in Turkey had no problems calling down a fatwa on some Christians - that is, the UK, Russia and France.
And about 60 years earlier those same Brits and Frogs had been Ottoman allies in the fight against Russia - because once again geopolitics was far more important than religion.
In fact throughout history it's easy to find examples where Christians and Muslims found geopolitics trumped religion, such as in the 16th century when France was surrounded by the politically and religiously aligned Spanish and German Empires, so the King of France made an alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent of Turkey.
Pointing to the quarter-century since North Korea first obtained nuclear weapons, the Vice President said a period of patience followed.
"But the era of strategic patience is over," he warned.
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
"South Korea should surrender, and welcome in their brothers from the North with open arms. The Kim regime would last about two weeks...":)
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
Possibly...
The thing is, though, the ultimate objective of the Kim regime is survival. Both Kim and his generals would be well aware that going to war would result in at least the loss of their cushy lifestyle and at worst death. Why would they do anything to risk that?
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.
If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.
Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.
Possibly...
The thing is, though, the ultimate objective of the Kim regime is survival. Both Kim and his generals would be well aware that going to war would result in at least the loss of their cushy lifestyle and at worst death. Why would they do anything to risk that?
That assumes that Kim and his regime have, in Adam Savage's famous phrase, accepted our reality and not substituted their own.
But Kim isn't even a garden-variety dictator who thrust his own way to power. He's the son of one, and has been given near-divine veneration all his life. How he sees the world must be incredibly different from how someone from the West would see it. He appears to truly see his position as some sort of divine right. How dangerous is it to play with nukes when you're the Chosen One? All his life has been a guaranteed win. I presume even as a toddler no one ever won at making sandcastles with him. The thought of losing probably is beyond his ken.
His mental state is probably something similar to Saddam Hussein, who could have ruled in comfort until he died a natural death if he'd understood the limits of his power, and that God wouldn't automatically make his the winning play every time the roulette wheel was spun.
[...] threat to numerous nations.
Exactly. We here in Canada have 'no interest' in this [....]
The last time British Columbia got into a dispute with America, Germany gave them a bunch of Canada's islands.[...] threat to numerous nations.
Exactly. We here in Canada have 'no interest' in this [....]
It's fun to be smug when you have "no interest" (like I really think the DPRK has the ability to deliver any kind of payload to North America.)
How quickly things change. I'm interested now. We, and I mean BC, not Canada per se, are trying to get into a trade war with the US. Probably a bad idea. All you can do is laugh. Right in the middle of a provincial election even.
(https://s11.postimg.org/c40lxhy0j/clark-and-trump-composite_1.jpg)
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/christy-clark-v-donald-trump-the-proverbial-knife-to-the-gun-fight/article34831213/%253Fservice%253Damp&ved=0ahUKEwi4soyK-sXTAhUT9GMKHU-SC6EQiJQBCBwwAA&usg=AFQjCNHiNndMvui07iNx47m4ZbbHCkBIwg&sig2=0XfL6FRKvqkPSh58a8qbaA
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-moves-to-ban-u-s-coal-transport-in-retaliation-for-softwood-duties-1.4086688
The last time British Columbia got into a dispute with America, Germany gave them a bunch of Canada's islands.
Suddenly Britain not looking so bad, maybe?Ugh. I take it back. I'm a bit worried that the PM has gotten a bit drunk on the "je suis Napolean" koolaid. And the alternative is a nutjob who never met a terrorist he didn't like.
I hope this is enough for some of the Republican Senators to recover their backbones and ethics.
Does this man have ANY redeeming qualities?... Truly he is the singularity at the centre of a black hole of ignorance.
Our nation's epitaph is going to be "but her e-mails." I literally saw a screencap from Fox News (I think from their website) that asked yesterday if she was going to be investigated some more.
The president has a congenital inability to take personal responsibility for his own mistakes.
...every error is someone else’s fault...
...when they are fired, aides have more incentive to rat out their former colleagues and boss.
Rather than a career-making move, going to work for Trump nearly guarantees one will appear dishonest and gullible. With each round of replacements the quality likely diminishes. Loyalty — toadyism, actually — is such an overarching requirement in this White House that new staff is unlikely to bring new ideas and/or help guide the president away from his own worst instincts.
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?Yeah, but he has been known to brag about how physically fit he is.
He went straight for Merkel.To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?
He's also the fattest, the dumbest, the most obnoxious and the most incompetent.Heck, it was only 700 metres of a walk!
I did laugh at this though....Macron did absolutely the right thing here in going straight to his allies and friends.
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?
So let's recap. The election was about a woman running on a campaign of vote me just coz, expecting to walk it against a buffoonish outsider who has said all sorts of reprehensible things and acted in all sorts of reprehensible ways but is able to overperform expectations by putting forward a bunch of outlandish populist policies that can strike a chord despite being hugely expensive, pointless and quite often counterproductive.
Why does this sound so familiar?
I would think most truly competent people would have looked at his record and refused to have anything to do with him. Especially anywhere he, personally, would be paying their salaries.Apparently not. I have a friend who works for a gaming machine company (slot machines, video poker, etc). Their company lost a few hundred $K by agreeing to sell some of their machines to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City before they went bankrupt.
Covfefe
...don't you get the impression that Donald Trump gets some positive pleasure out of taking people who make the mistake of trusting him for a ride?
Oh, and, yes, I'm pretty sure that he's duped plenty of people and then said it was their fault for trusting them. He's gone bankrupt repeatedly, including bankrupting a casino, which ought to be impossible to do. They may be professional and not personal bankruptcies, but for someone who ran in no small part on his success as a businessman, that's not better.I've heard it said (I can't recall where) that if he had invested his inheritance from daddy in moderately conservative index funds, he'd be worth far more than he is now. I can't and won't vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but it certainly rings true.
So let's recap. The election was about a woman running on a campaign of vote me just coz, expecting to walk it against a buffoonish outsider who has said all sorts of reprehensible things and acted in all sorts of reprehensible ways but is able to overperform expectations by putting forward a bunch of outlandish populist policies that can strike a chord despite being hugely expensive, pointless and quite often counterproductive.It's like the world is stuck on repeat.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Scathing, searing and brutal were just a few of the adjectives flying around social media on Sunday following an eloquent takedown of Donald Trump by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) political editor Chris Uhlmann.
Speaking to Insiders from Hamburg, Uhlmann delivered a wrap on the G20 summit that has since gone viral, resonating with people from around the world and astonishing American political commentators.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
To be fair, isn't he the oldest of the lot?Yeah, but he has been known to brag about how physically fit he is.
Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
Trump has already killed quite a lot of people, if we take the radical, extremist view that Africans and Asians count as people. His immediate predecessor killed many thousands, and the one before that had a truly impressive body count. Had the November 2016 election gone the other way, the new US president would have come into office on day one with quite a long trail of dead bodies already behind her. Whether Trump manages to send more people to their graves than his two predecessors or his election rival, time will tell, although I don't see a whole lot of reason to expect him to show any more restraint than they did.
None of them were impeached, before or after killing large numbers of Africans or Asians who are sometimes alleged to be people. I’ll be surprised if that changes any time soon.
He's possibly more fit than William Howard Taft was.
Do you think that the leaders of any powerful country with military presence have never contributed to the death of anyone?
There's no one out there with clean hands. No one.
Seriously, if I were Hilary Clinton, I'd have my bags packed and a place to go with no extradition. Because I can see Trump reaching the conclusion that a good show trial is the best way to divert attention from his actions. I'm sure he remembers how popular the "lock her up" chants were at his rallies.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html
Seriously - impeach President Trump before he actually does something that will kill people.
What a name. That'll play great in the movie.
Seriously, if I were Hilary Clinton, I'd have my bags packed and a place to go with no extradition. Because I can see Trump reaching the conclusion that a good show trial is the best way to divert attention from his actions. I'm sure he remembers how popular the "lock her up" chants were at his rallies.
That seems like it would have been a good to thing to think about before she repeatedly voted in the senate to strengthen the government's ability to detain suspects indefinitely, or just assassinate them. But I suppose she always figured she would be on the other side of that transaction. Rather odd, because she is not stupid. She generally opposed US membership in the ICC, which seems like a good idea for someone with her policies, who was hoping to become president in the same year that "aggression" became a defined crime under the Rome statute. A bit surprising that she could anticipate the danger to herself in the one context, but completely miss it in the other.
However, I would give her the opposite advice, and tell her to stay in the US - she'll be much safer there, than in some country that might actually try her or send her to the ICC. She is a spent force, no danger to the Trump presidency; if he wants a show trial, it will be someone who is currently in power and blocking him from achieving his objectives. And if he just needs a general popularity plug, he can always do what she would have done, and go kill a few hundred thousand Muslims.
He will not be impeached (there's no way we're turning over the House before 2020).
What a name. That'll play great in the movie.For some reason I kept thinking it was Scaramanga.
Did he have a golden gun?What a name. That'll play great in the movie.For some reason I kept thinking it was Scaramanga.
After a series of moves similar to two thugs in a bar who keep deliberately provoking each other to draw their guns. Unfortunately, it may lead to massive loss of life among the other bar patrons who had nothing to do with it.
This might be a case of the US bringing a gun to a knife fight. Any military conflict would be much different than, say, the Toyota war. A large or modern nuclear arsenal is not necessary to bring a world of hurt to South Korea. The DPRK has huge numbers of conventional artillery massed along the border. Huge, I say.After a series of moves similar to two thugs in a bar who keep deliberately provoking each other to draw their guns. Unfortunately, it may lead to massive loss of life among the other bar patrons who had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, except one is holding a single shot Webley Air Pistol and the other is holding 50 calibre Desert Eagle with a 7 round clip and one in the chamber (and a couple of full spare clips in his pocket)
Hey. Civilised countries drive on the left. There's Ireland.This might be a case of the US bringing a gun to a knife fight. Any military conflict would be much different than, say, the Toyota war. A large or modern nuclear arsenal is not necessary to bring a world of hurt to South Korea. The DPRK has huge numbers of conventional artillery massed along the border. Huge, I say.After a series of moves similar to two thugs in a bar who keep deliberately provoking each other to draw their guns. Unfortunately, it may lead to massive loss of life among the other bar patrons who had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, except one is holding a single shot Webley Air Pistol and the other is holding 50 calibre Desert Eagle with a 7 round clip and one in the chamber (and a couple of full spare clips in his pocket)
It's not just the .50 cal. Desert Eagle that makes the US hyperpowerful, but also the high level of professionalism displayed by the troops. How professional is the North Korean soldiery? We don't know, although it sure would be easy to find out. My guess is that they are "pretty professional."
We do know that since '94, Songun - a policy of "military first" - has been central to North Korea. The Korean People's Army wants for nothing, period. This is a nation-state, not some irregular force holed up in a desert or a jungle, improvising explosive devices and conducting raids on or even capturing and holding cities.
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
But how bad can things get when they have aligned themselves with most of the world in one small but crucial detail: unlike regional isolationists Japan and Hong Kong, they drive on the right.
Charlottesville Police Chief Al S. Thomas Jr. said the rallygoers went back on a plan that would have kept them separated from the counterprotesters. Instead of coming in at one entrance, he said, they came in from all sides. Headlong into the counterprotesters.
A few minutes before 11 a.m., a swelling group of white nationalists carrying large shields and long wooden clubs approached the park on Market Street. About two dozen counterprotesters formed a line across the street, blocking their path. With a roar, the marchers charged through the line, swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals.
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
Meanwhile, Kim Jong Un is standing over in the corner, waving his arms frantically, and yelling, "hey, imperialist pigs, remember me? Still have nukes, still working on missiles."
Not that honest-to-God Nazis aren't a thing to get exercised about (especially when they kill a counter-protester and call it a good day), but...
It might be useful to remember that North Korea exists because the last time we (Canada and whoever else) traded shots with them, we gave up, because they were too bad*ss.
It also had a bit to do with China.
It's disheartening to discover how racist some of my friends' friends are. I need to stop arguing with them; it doesn't convince them, and it just makes me feel worse.
It's disheartening to discover how racist some of my friends' friends are. I need to stop arguing with them; it doesn't convince them, and it just makes me feel worse.As far as racists go, there is a naziesque rally planned for tomorrow, here in Vancouver. We shall see how that plays out. My prediction is it will be attended by a couple thousand antis, a couple hundred reporters, and a small basket of deplorables.
Holy...
I'm watching this BBC Four series about the Vietnam War.
Just got to the bit about how Nixon sabotaged peace talks in the runup to the 1968 election to help his campaign. That is so low real numbers can't quantify it. At least Trump hasn't yet gone that low.
Though after seeing the bit about John McCain's captivity, it makes Trump's remarks about McCain all the more despicable. Still not as bad as extending a terrible war for personal political gain though.
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
... Putin could get the band back together ...He's on a mission from God.
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
crazy Trump wants to stir unnecessary problems
https://www.livescience.com/61110-us-embassy-move-jerusalem.html?utm_source=notification
Indeed. Though this particular one reinforces my belief that Jerusalem ought to be an international city, part of no country.Wasn't the late King Hussain of Jordan trying to get that done? Pity his successor doesn't seem interested.
It's a hundred and eight miles to the White House. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.... Putin could get the band back together ...He's on a mission from God.
It's a hundred and eight miles to the White House. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.... Putin could get the band back together ...He's on a mission from God.
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
I'm reading What Happened, and man, I wish she were President right now. Also, she's a lot funnier than people give her credit for. I was horrified, too, to discover that Bill was the first husband at the hospital where Chelsea was born allowed to be in the operating room while his wife was having a C-section, and they only let him in because they didn't want to argue with the governor.
The deep, deep irony is that Trump was not supposed to win; his role was to lose ungraciously and continually call into question the legitimacy of her Presidency (remember he was saying that the election would be rigged all through the primaries and general). The Russians had a huge pile of dirt (some legit, most made up) ready to spoon-feed Congressional Republicans so that they'd start hearings the day she was inaugurated. And, while the federal government was distracted and paralyzed, Putin could get the band back together without much interference.
Of course, a bunch of rednecks in "real America" wrecked that particular plan, and here we are. The GOP's entire playbook going into 2017 was going to be "oppose Clinton on literally everything"; that's why they can't freaking shut up about her, even though she's now just a private citizen with no real power. Trump doesn't want to be President, you can tell by his manner and attitude. He's freaking miserable in the job. I will legitimately be surprised if he makes it to 2020 without some major health issue.
I'm just pulling this post from November back up because it fits so well with the story in the Wolff book that's blowing up Washington this week. That gives a sadly hilarious story of Trump's reaction when he realized he was going to win.
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Yeah....this "shy introverted person" managed to get from a 2 bed apartment in a former Eastern Bloc country to the White House via the medium of modelling, soft-porn photoshoots some of which included simulated lesbian sex scenes. I cannot think of anyone that less likely fits the description of a "shy introverted person". I think that " single-minded focus", "scheming" and someone that is more than happy to use her sexual talents and attributes to sleep her way to the top is probably far more apt.
I mostly agree, but there are places where gerrymandering cannot be overcome with sufficient turnout; that's the whole point. Not unless a certain proportion of voters in those districts realize they've been had. Especially with current voter suppression tactics.
It does make me sorry for Melania, though. Yes, she agreed to sell herself to be pawed by an obnoxious old man. But she seems to be a shy, introverted person, and I don't think she realized she was signing up to be a public figure, in a country and language not her own. And inexcusably, the administration has failed to give her a strong support staff that could at least create a public persona comfortable with her role. I can truly believe she wept on realizing this was going to be her life now.
Yeah....this "shy introverted person" managed to get from a 2 bed apartment in a former Eastern Bloc country to the White House via the medium of modelling, soft-porn photoshoots some of which included simulated lesbian sex scenes. I cannot think of anyone that less likely fits the description of a "shy introverted person". I think that " single-minded focus", "scheming" and someone that is more than happy to use her sexual talents and attributes to sleep her way to the top is probably far more apt.
You may be right about scheming or single-minded. But I've never seen a First Lady who looks so ill-at-ease in her position. Her body language consistently screams "Get me out of here!" rather than "Look at me! I'm on top of the world!"
As I said, I think she sold herself to an old man for money. But I'm pretty sure that she never figured being a public figure into it. She looks like imposter syndrome weighs heavily on her. She knows this isn't a role she was cut out for, and her attempts at smiling through it are pitiable. And I'm sure Trump gives her no praise for what success she has, and plenty of criticism if he feels she doesn't make him look good.
But I don't think she's happy where she is. Let's just say that the day she gets her widow's weeds out will be the day she'll wear the most genuine smile she's had since Trump started to run.
So, it appears that Trump wants, someday, to go to Mars.
But for the time being, NASA gets severe cuts on studying climate change.
Oh boo hoo. You think you got problems? At least in three years you'll be done with this. In three years, our problems will only be just beginning.
What hope for us when a country that has an unelected head of government, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, an unelected civil service*, acts like somehow we're being oppressed because we don't get to directly vote for the President of the European Council, who doesn't even have legislative or executive power. Perhaps illusion might describe the mindset.
* not that I have a problem with most of that though I'm open minded about Lords reform
Sorry. Someone was wrong on the Internet and it got me worked up. I restrain myself from participating in the places I read, so I dumped here where noone will see it.
If there was at least an opposition that wasn't terrifying, there would be a glimmer of hope. But that's too much to ask it seems.
Oh boo hoo. You think you got problems? At least in three years you'll be done with this.
In three years, our problems will only be just beginning.
What hope for us when a country that has an unelected head of government, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, an unelected civil service*, acts like somehow we're being oppressed because we don't get to directly vote for the President of the European Council, who doesn't even have legislative or executive power. Perhaps illusion might describe the mindset.
* not that I have a problem with most of that though I'm open minded about Lords reform
Sorry. Someone was wrong on the Internet and it got me worked up. I restrain myself from participating in the places I read, so I dumped here where noone will see it.
Also, I frankly wouldn't put it past Trump to claim to have accomplished everything he wants to in a single term and just not run again. I don't think he likes being President.
Quite honestly, if I read a fictional POTUS like him in a book, I'd expect it to be crazy satire, because if it were intended to be realistic I'd have told the author "dial it back to believable levels of stupidity and corruption."Perhaps he's a comedian, playing the long game, like Andy Kaufman.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-florida-shooting-parkland-school-run-into-no-gun-stop-shooter-broward-deputy-a8229536.html
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
Quite honestly, if I read a fictional POTUS like him in a book, I'd expect it to be crazy satire, because if it were intended to be realistic I'd have told the author "dial it back to believable levels of stupidity and corruption."Perhaps he's a comedian, playing the long game, like Andy Kaufman.
It's easy to be brave after the fact. ::)
He would have "run in" ..... ?
Has anyone, anywhere, seen Trump run AT ALL in living memory? I would ask how quick he could run a 100metres, if I thought he could complete but a fraction of that....
This is after all the man who has professed that you only get a certain number of heartbeats in your life, so why do anything to use them up faster.
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
Yes as per the NRA’s idea to stop school masacares, “let’s arm the teachers!” Why do these barmy ideas not sound idiotic to the people that propose them?
Selling a gun to the teachers to stop the man that you sold a gun to sounds awfully like the logic of a person who wants to sell two guns.
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
You have to remember that guns are magic and solve everything, even the problems they cause.
Yes as per the NRA’s idea to stop school masacares, “let’s arm the teachers!” Why do these barmy ideas not sound idiotic to the people that propose them?
Selling a gun to the teachers to stop the man that you sold a gun to sounds awfully like the logic of a person who wants to sell two guns.
Was just reading this thread and someone shared this with me.. There is a video attached as people outside the UK (and some inside the UK) will not understand the reference.There's a small industry working this meme:
There's a small industry working this meme:
https://www.facebook.com/TrumptonMayor/
As he left the podium, Trump took a question from a journalist asking how the deal will affect US security.Well, I'm really glad you cleared that up for us Mr President...
"How does this make America safer?" asked the journalist.
"This will make America much safer," Trump responded.
My only hope is that Europe, Russia, China etc. can persuade Iran that it's still worth continuing the deal. That however would leave the US very isolated, potentially leading to other problems.
It's starting to look like a good time to stop letting the US "lead" the way for the rest of the world
The fact that he thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is ridiculous.
I expected corruption. I expected sanctions to be lifted from Russia. I expected the EPA to be dismantled.It's absolutely appalling, and hasn't escaped notice in the rest of the world. I cannot understand how anyone can either sanction or carry out these "orders" with a clear conscience. The conditions the children are being held in are terrible, and now they're planning on using tents to accommodate even more!
I did not expect children to be separated from their parents and thrown into internment camps. Disgusting.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180616/d740f3b2c1223b9fdb601d0a4c48138b.jpg)
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
https://www.facebook.com/100002127357968/posts/1725908540823374/Link does not work.
This is too much. .he is a crazed monster and should be made to resign
https://www.facebook.com/100002127357968/posts/1725908540823374/
This is too much. .he is a crazed monster and should be made to resign
Of course, that's become much more difficult for those of low income levels, because the State Department greatly increased the cost of renouncing US citizenship shortly after Trump's election. Funny that.
15 years ago I blasted anyone who thought of giving up their US citizenship and moving to another country - running away wasn't going to fix anything. Now, I'm halfway seriously considering it myself, because I don't think things can be fixed anymore.
I've said it before, Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem.
If the Democrats fail to flip either the House or the Senate this fall (which is likely, because Democrats don't vote in the midterms), hang on to your socks. We may be seeing reruns of 1968-level domestic violence.
I'm coming to the conclusion that China is a bigger threat to the USA
by contrast the Chinese are ruthless, pragmatic and, above all, patient
Of course, on top of that, the USA is facing an increasing threat from a Russia
whose leader looks to be out for revenge for defeat in the Cold War
I've just been watching parts of an Australian ABC report about Russian meddling in the USA
These days, however, I see that Sima Nan is now a loyal advocate for the Chinese government and noisy critic of everything Western or Liberal or American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Nan). I have to say it's a strange feeling to dislike a fellow atheist skeptic because he in turn dislikes the intellectual tradition which gave birth to Western liberalism and skepticism.
There are a couple of states that split their electoral college votes by congressional district with the remaining two being state wide. Why don't all states do this?
I know this is tangential but I am curious.
The fact that he thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is ridiculous.
That prize was completely discredited, if it hadn't been already, when it was given to Barack Obama, who had done nothing to earn it at the time (his own words), and subsequently became quite expert at extrajudicial assassination.
How's everyone feeling about this SCOTUS nominee?
IMHO it could've been worse, but of course it's still awful. Dude doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted, and we're not really sure what he'll due to R.v.W. yet. He's also a 2A enthusiast.
Luckily for R.v.W, he believes precedent holds, so maybe he won't overturn it.
Maybe.
Dems need to fight like hell to oppose this nominee.
I've seen a lot of posts from my friends about being sure you're registered to vote in time for our primary next month. Though my friends for the most part already were, I'm sure!
...Texas "has been on the verge of turning blue" for well over a decade, but we never do, because Texas Democrats can't be bothered to show up when it matters...
But Trump is unpicking America's position in Asia. And there's not much that Mattis or the remaining "adults in the room" can do about it. So far this year the President has imposed punitive tariffs on Asian allies and partners, legitimised Kim Jong-un's despotic regime without securing any denuclearisation goals, failed to consult allies before cancelling joint military exercises in north-east Asia, and started a trade war that will harm the entire region.
This assault on America's leadership role in the Indo-Pacific couldn't come at a worse time for Australia and its regional partners. As power is shifting from the US to China, Canberra's preferred mode for regional order – the maintenance of an American "security umbrella" – is no longer realistic.
Middle powers like Australia and Japan are thus struggling to advance an Indo-Pacific strategy in which like-minded nations take on greater responsibilities for helping the US maintain a "balance of power" vis-a-vis China. But while America's national security establishment is on board with this strategy, Trump's wrecking ball approach to the region is making an Indo-Pacific balance harder to achieve.
Is America really facing the nightmare scenario, a president who beholden to a foreign power, and is acting in the best interests of that foreign power?
There is no other word for it but staggering. In these circumstances, I doesn't matter what the presenter's bias is, the wording of the indictment doesn't change and is there for all to see. The degree of detail is astonishing.
All he's missing is a lair under a volcano and a white cat.
Yesterday, he announced that his new buddy, Vlad, is going to visit The White House in the fall.
He's elbowed other people out of the way to be in front (despite being taller than all of them so therefore easily visible wherever he stands),
I loved these little details, which are waaaay too subtle for Trumplethinskin to work out.Sometimes a broach is just a broach, to paraphrase, but, on the other hand, I would not put it past her.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17586942/queen-elizabeth-brooch-warfare-trump-obama-code
Democracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters—which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Mencken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken) had our number 90 years ago:QuoteDemocracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters—which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.QuoteAs democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Mencken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken) had our number 90 years ago:QuoteDemocracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world—that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters—which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.QuoteAs democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
And now he changes his mind after he saw the pressure from everyone
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
And now he changes his mind after he saw the pressure from everyone
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
I paraphrase Stalin- A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
So Trump believes that Khashoggi was killed in a fight now while all the world stands laughing at the Saudi story :D
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
Talking about 1631, 1634 and 1639?
I like voting by mail. Haven't stepped in a polling place since 1982.
Talking about 1631, 1634 and 1639?
And now he changes his mind after he saw the pressure from everyone
Apart from that,what a coward crime indeed.. and what a pathetic explanation from KSA. The Saudi regime should be punished, also the Syrian regime who has killed thousands like Khashoggi, but there is no one to pressure them as should
Their not getting punished for killing hundreds of thousands in Yemen. Why should one more make a difference?
I paraphrase Stalin- A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
Oh, yes. There are signs up all over telling us to vote no on 1639, saying it "criminalizes self-defense."Yeah, that's why it's a good thing to actually read about the initiative. Not just reading the summary included in the voter guide which can be incomplete. This year the initiative summaries are greatly improved.
Because it includes a provision that you have to properly store your assault rifle, should you have one, and that you are liable for the commission of a crime with it.I know that some gun owners were especially put off by the provision that all semi-auto rifles would be defined as assault rifles. It was part of the slippery slope. Later on "they" will say they only want to ban assault rifles. That is when you find out grandpa's hunting rifle is actually a weapon of terror and not a family heirloom. :)
Top Donors supporting I-139:The $5 billion donated by supporters is much greater than the $600K donated by the NRA and others who oppose I-1639
Paul Allen: $1,226,036
Nicolas Hanauer: $713,018
Leslie Hanauer: $713,018
Connie Ballmer: $600,000
Steven Ballmer: $500,000
Waiver of confidentiality.Semiautomatic assault rifles will be included along with pistols where the waiver is concerned.
A signed application to purchase a pistol shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.
So basically, your mental health history would be considered relevant in your permit request?Yes.
Meaning the NRA push poll I got on our last initiative for gun control, that it would be better to keep guns out of the hands of "dangerous mentally ill people," might actually happen?It is supposed to be happening now with pistol purchases from FFL's.
And now he's saying he can change the US Constitution with an Executive Order, and is planning to. If he pulls that off, the US is effectively a dictatorship, since it means the US Constitution can be changed at the whims of one person.
And now he's saying he can change the US Constitution with an Executive Order, and is planning to. If he pulls that off, the US is effectively a dictatorship, since it means the US Constitution can be changed at the whims of one person.
Seriously, what is going on with US voters?
Seriously, what is going on with US voters?
The way I see it, there are two types of Republican voters: 1) the ones who just aren't smart enough to know better, 2) the ones who do know better, but think "winning" is more important than doing what is best for the country.
I can forgive people who voted for Trump in 2016 because they gave him the benefit of the doubt. But now they have no excuse for continuing to support him. He is obviously corrupt and I can't wait to see him removed from office. I just hope Mueller's investigation (and the evidence he has collected) can be protected long enough for that to happen.
To be fair, the Democrats once voted in a dead man, back in 2000.Dead Man Running was a plot in The West Wing.
He's a poor man's idea of a rich man, a stupid man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.He's the anti-Bartlet.
Do not underestimate the strong undercurrents of fascism in the US. It's always been there (Henry Ford thought Hitler was a swell guy), but it's been steadily growing over the decades as more and more people realize that being white, Christian, and male is no longer sufficient for being the guy in charge. Mediocre white men have been losing positions of power and economic superiority to women and minorities, and that's Just Not Right.
Then you have the crime-has-never-been-higher, brown-people-are-coming-to-murder-us-in-our-sleep bedwetters, who are the kind of people whom Ben Franklin was talking about when he said, "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." These are the people who are just fine with the kind of wanton brutality Joe Arpaio and David Clarke subjected their inmates to.
Way too many Americans want a strong daddy figure to make all the scary monsters go away, and for some incomprehensible reason they have decided that's Trump. He's a poor man's idea of a rich man, a stupid man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
A divided government will slow him down, but he still has the Senate to approve his appointments and any further SCOTUS nominees (pray to whatever gods you believe in that RBG doesn't kick before 2020). The last few months have shown us that there aren't that many built-in legal protections against a President going apeshit (yes, there's the 25th amendment, but that requires the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to sign off, and if they're all loyalists, they won't). The only thing that stopped previous Presidents from wrecking the whole system was a sense of shame.
The fact that some people not just voted for this man but actually support him makes me want some type of entrance exam for voting.
"I'm sorry Sir but you are too stupid to vote".
The fact that some people not just voted for this man but actually support him makes me want some type of entrance exam for voting.
"I'm sorry Sir but you are too stupid to vote".
The problem with that is that it is all too often used as a way to prevent minorities from voting. Now, a test for candidates, I can support!
I was saddened, although not too surprised, to read that Trump decided not to go to the Armistice Remembrance at the main US War Grave site in France, because it was raining, and sent his deputies instead. He seems totally disconnected from reality, and completely lacking in any understanding of the historical context or importance of the occasion.
He also tweeted that he was "...getting ready to celebrate the end of World War One.". "Celebrate"?!?! Words fail me...
I used to think that we'd be better off let Trump run out his four years. I thought that the cult of personality surrounding him would be best left without a martyr or cause to rally around. But now I'm not sure it would be. It would really be great if he would just do us all a favor and keel over.Pence may not be quite as embarrassing in a very easily mockable way, but his religious conservatism, in my opinion, is no doubt behind many of Trump's more outright bigoted moves. I'd rather not see him as President. VP is bad enough!
I used to think that we'd be better off let Trump run out his four years. I thought that the cult of personality surrounding him would be best left without a martyr or cause to rally around. But now I'm not sure it would be. It would really be great if he would just do us all a favor and keel over.Pence may not be quite as embarrassing in a very easily mockable way, but his religious conservatism, in my opinion, is no doubt behind many of Trump's more outright bigoted moves. I'd rather not see him as President. VP is bad enough!
Based on an article I've read in the "New Yorker" magazine, Pence is a dangerously ambitious Christian extremist who is pretty much in the pocket of the Koch brothers.
Based on an article I've read in the "New Yorker" magazine, Pence is a dangerously ambitious Christian extremist who is pretty much in the pocket of the Koch brothers.
When the New Yorker starts talking about the Koch Brothers, run for cover. The magazine and the left in general use them as their version of an existential threat to some undefined "democracy." The Nancy MacLean Democracy in Chains conspiracy theory rant of a book is an example of where this all leads.
The Kochs were early and large opponents of Trump and have never cared for institutionalized big government/religion types like Pence. They are not obviously religions.
I think Pence will be hamstrung by the whole thing--for one thing, he'll be battling a Democratic House the whole way. I would also, to be honest, be quite surprised if there isn't enough evidence to get him, too.
I also think this shutdown is helping to fracture Trump's base in a way nothing else would. The military isn't getting paid. I'm deeply concerned about getting my Social Security check next month and was frankly shocked to get it this month. (I don't make enough on my Patreon to cover more than about a single meal a month.) Any economic growth that was happening is getting destroyed by the number of people affected by the shutdown. The quote that I think sums up what's damaging his support is the guy who said it was "hurting the wrong people."
And I still think my reasons for not wanting to impeach Trump still stand
I also think this shutdown is helping to fracture Trump's base in a way nothing else would.
.. largely because Gerald Ford was widely respected.
I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
Hey, Gerald Ford had the best attendance record on the Warren Commission!There are four Congressional Districts along the Rio Grande in Texas. The three Democrats can naturally be expected to be in opposition. The one Republican, whose huge and mostly rural district covers the longest stretch of the Rio Grande of all four districts, is adamantly opposed.
I've read that not one Representative from a district along the border supports the wall. That includes Texas Republicans.
I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
Apparently the Brits are seriously looking into rumors that some of the same skullduggery that aided the Hamberdler was also behind Brexit. Not that the Orangeman (as my Irish-leaning dad calls him) needed outside help. I'm unhappily willing to believe my countrymen are just that destructive.Is that intentionally an Irish sectarian reference?
Good thing our air traffic control is privitised.I have a friend whose husband is an air traffic controller. He's missed two paychecks now, and they're worried about making their mortgage. But, yes, he's expected to work every day anyway.
Once the shutdown finishes would he get back-pay for the time he's been working without pay?
This has happened during past shutdowns. But is not guaranteed.
I was surprised the FAA is skipping paychecks. It is my understanding that ATC is funded with user fees not appropriations. It's becoming more of a problem.
Good thing our air traffic control is privitised.
Funnily enough, transparency and accountability are higher under government control than corporate control.There is certainly situation where a profit motive creates better results, but a matter of public safety like that? I don't see it.
Funnily enough, transparency and accountability are higher under government control than corporate control.
I mean, we just found out that Johnson & Johnson had been lying for years about the presence of asbestos in baby powder!
That's an important and often overlooked point.Funnily enough, transparency and accountability are higher under government control than corporate control.
Not necessarily so.QuoteI mean, we just found out that Johnson & Johnson had been lying for years about the presence of asbestos in baby powder!
How much impropriety in government atomic energy research has been hidden? Medical experiments? Drone wars? Etc. Neither form of ownership by itself provides of a guarantee of transparency. Private ownership has the advantage of having the regulated and the regulator not being controlled by the same entity.
But my original point was that NATS don't operate at Her Majesty's Pleasure so an impasse on supply won't affect them (well not as fundamentally anyway).
Good thing our air traffic control is privitised.
Manawatu Standard, Tuesday 30 October 2018, page 12"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell – I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.’’ – Donald Trump, February 1, 2016
Reality always has last word
Leonard Pitts Jr, The Miami Herald
‘‘I’d like to punch him in the face.’’ – Donald Trump, February 22, 2016
‘‘You know, part of the problem... is nobody wants to hurt each other any more, right?’’ – Donald Trump, March 11, 2016
‘‘Any guy that can do a body slam... He’s my guy.’’ – Donald Trump, October 18, 2018, praising Republican representative Greg Gianforte, who was convicted of assaulting a reporter.
‘‘We have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that threats or acts of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America.’’ – Donald Trump, October 24, 2018
Lord, this guy...
He just can’t help himself, can he? Seems like every time he opens his mouth, out falls the bovine excreta, great lumps of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.
He was at it again last Wednesday. The mind reeled as Trump, arguably America’s most enthusiastic proponent of political violence, made a statement deploring political violence. This, as investigators sought the person who sent explosive devices to CNN as well as to Barack and Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder and other prominent critics of Trump’s chaos presidency.
No, Trump isn’t the first president to say something at sharp variance with what he said before. Obama once claimed he never said: ‘‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’’ George W Bush once claimed his administration never advocated ‘‘stay the course’’ in Iraq.
But this guy, Lord, this guy, with him, it’s not a sometime thing. Rather, it is every day, all the time, as if in his world, words have no fixed meaning and people, no memory.
So that what he said with seeming sincerity on Tuesday can be demolished by what he says with seeming sincerity on Wednesday and he doesn’t care – indeed, he marvels that anyone does – because, hey, Tuesday’s gone. And Thursday’s coming.
This ongoing insult of reality, this daily denigration of truth, is epidemic among Trump’s people. Unable to face what is, they live in a kingdom of lies, seek sanctuary down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. Indeed, Trump cultists – Lou Dobbs, James Woods, Rush Limbaugh, Candace Owens and more – suggested the bombs were part of a Democratic plot to sway the coming election.
Meantime, this guy, this morally deformed 72-year-old brat, had a theory of his own. After bombs were sent to people he has spent years insulting – ‘‘low IQ’’, ‘‘crooked’’, ‘‘ignorant’’ – and to a network he has spent years condemning – ‘‘enemies of the people’’ – Trump tweeted that the ‘‘anger’’ in our society is a result of media’s ‘‘false and inaccurate reporting’’.
So in other words, if reporters would just stop challenging him, stop questioning him, stop behaving as if words have meaning and people, memories, all will be well. He probably even believes that.
But the issue here is not news media. Nor is it civility or Republicans being yelled at in restaurants. No, the issue is reality and the fact that it becomes no less real because you don’t acknowledge it.
That’s what the Trump cult has never figured out. Reality will always have the last word.
And you may run from it, but you can never escape.
Not even down a rabbit hole, not even in a kingdom of lies.
Well, one thing has changed for the better since then. The Democrats took the House and now they have majorities on all the relevant investigative committees.
* Inconsistencies: at one point Cohen said that Trump didn't intend to win the Presidency, merely gain some free publicity in the process; at another point he said that Trump was willing to do anything to win the election.
Frankly, given his personality, the idea of not going all-out to win even if you don't want to seems unlikely to have occurred to him.
What do you think he's done right?I was wondering the same thing. The only thing Trump could claim as a success was the economy... and even if you ignore the signs that point to an impending recession, I think it is safe to say that the economy was doing well despite Trump not because of him.
We can only hope that Western leaders will be mature enough to follow their strategic interests rather than react personally.
And, for me, this is problem with a lot of critics of Trump - the people who are so opposed to him that they oppose whatever he says, does or proposes, regardless of whether it's sensible or not. As they say in Australian Rules football, "Play the ball, not the man." In other words, respond to the statement or the policy, not to the fact that Trump said it, and give him credit when he says or does something good.
Hyper-partisanship isn't going to help the USA in the long term, which is why I think the best Democrat Party candidate for beating Trump is a moderate.
We can only hope that Western leaders will be mature enough to follow their strategic interests rather than react personally.
And, for me, this is problem with a lot of critics of Trump - the people who are so opposed to him that they oppose whatever he says, does or proposes, regardless of whether it's sensible or not. As they say in Australian Rules football, "Play the ball, not the man." In other words, respond to the statement or the policy, not to the fact that Trump said it, and give him credit when he says or does something good.
Hyper-partisanship isn't going to help the USA in the long term, which is why I think the best Democrat Party candidate for beating Trump is a moderate.
OH, and reference the economy: I am not sure about this but didn't the economy start to grow under the Obama administration? If I am right (and this is simply based on something I think I saw) President Trump is simply taking credit for the work done by previous administrations.That is my understanding as well. He's also laying the groundwork for not taking the blame if/when things go sour with his attacks on the Federal Reserve.
What do you think he's done right?
What do you think he's done right?
Not many things, for sure, but some:
- Confronting China on trade, currency and intellectual property problems it's causing
and backing the Hong Kong protesters;
- Leaning on NATO partners to shoulder their burden of defence spending rather than having them sit back and rely on the USA;
- Making agreements with both parties in Congress over debt limits ('good' in the sense that it shows he's perfectly capable of making agreements with the Democrats and isn't always mindlessly criticising them);
- Confronting Russia and backing Russia's neighbours;
- Arguably, making a deal with Kim Jong-un (sure, the deal hasn't achieved much, but 'good' in the sense that it gave Kim Jong-un the publicity he wanted without giving too much away);
- Arguably, pulling out of the Iran deal ('good' in the sense that I've heard credible commentators criticising the original deal as made).
Another thing to consider is that Trump has maintained his power-base even though it contains groups which theoretically have conflicting objectives (for example, the foreign policy hawks vs the isolationists, or the moral conservatives vs the libertarians). This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a thing to be aware of. People who've supported him or worked for him have later criticised him (Anthony Scaramucci, Ann Coulter and Chris Christie all come to mind) and yet it seems to have no major effect on his popularity. However, the more noise that's made about impeaching him, the more strongly his base supports him.
He's not real popular in Denmark right now, with him cancelling his visit, because our prime minister said she wouldn't consider selling Greenland.
He's not real popular in Denmark right now, with him cancelling his visit, because our prime minister said she wouldn't consider selling Greenland.
Ex-president Obama comes across as a decent human being.
I must apologise. I have previously had quite a condescending view of the American system. I was always thinking it was nowhere near as good as Americans like to think it is. Well, stones and glass houses. So far, it has kept a wannabe dictator at bay for nearly three years. Our system has crumbled in a month. We are now officially a dictatorship. So America wins (again).Do you think there will be a 'no-confidence' motion?
I must apologise. I have previously had quite a condescending view of the American system. I was always thinking it was nowhere near as good as Americans like to think it is. Well, stones and glass houses. So far, it has kept a wannabe dictator at bay for nearly three years. Our system has crumbled in a month. We are now officially a dictatorship. So America wins (again).
Do you think there will be a 'no-confidence' motion?Possibly, but that might just mean that parliament is dissolved and the election comes after the Brexit deadline.
Do you think the general public will protest this action?There were several thousand protesting in Westminster yesterday evening, plus spontaneous protests in other cities across the country.
The Danish Queen Margrethe? She's apolitical, but extends invitations to state visits on request. And an american president - no matter what or who - is a state visit.I think he's referring to Queen Elizabeth with respect to proroguing the UK Parliament.. Again, though, she's nominally apolitical, and the request to prorogue is (usually) just a formality.
Yeah, that's the thing--everything cited as something good he's done is missing a lot of context that shows that, no, it actually isn't. For example, "making agreements with both parties" implies that he's been successful at it. He hasn't. Literally every agreement has been reached in spite of him, not because of him, because he insists that funding for his stupid, pointless wall be part of budget agreements. And the Democrats won't agree to that, because it's stupid and pointless and the money would pretty much be better spent being set on fire to heat federal buildings. And if he were really confronting Russia, mightn't he consider saying something about how they definitely interfered in the election?
Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?
If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.
In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.
Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment),
what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr).
Yeah, that's the thing--everything cited as something good he's done is missing a lot of context that shows that, no, it actually isn't. For example, "making agreements with both parties" implies that he's been successful at it. He hasn't. Literally every agreement has been reached in spite of him, not because of him, because he insists that funding for his stupid, pointless wall be part of budget agreements. And the Democrats won't agree to that, because it's stupid and pointless and the money would pretty much be better spent being set on fire to heat federal buildings. And if he were really confronting Russia, mightn't he consider saying something about how they definitely interfered in the election?
Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?
If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.
In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.
Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment), what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr). The way I see it, there's a portion of the population (around 3-5% I think) who'd happily vote for any Trump family member, and I suspect the Republican Party leadership would accept Trump candidates for a while to come if that means they can lock in Republican control of the White House for two or three decades.
The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into four major automakers who have rejected the Trump administration's relaxed air pollution and mileage regulations.
The four automakers — Ford (F), Honda (HMC), Volkswagen and BMW — agreed in July to meet the tougher standards set by the California Air Resources Board rather than the Trump administration's rules, which would roll back standards put in place under former President Barack Obama.
Although the California rules would require automakers to build more costly cars, they gave the companies an advantage: The automakers would have to meet only one national standard, rather than one weaker standard for most of the country and one tougher standard for California and 13 other states that follow its rules. Those 14 states account for about 40% of the US population.
There's a long difference between "investigated" and "prosecuted." Nixon liked having people "investigated" when he was mad at them, too.Ah, indeed. I should have read more carefully. It seems that our leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are thrashing about and creating a lot of distractions from their failings at the moment.
Up north of the Yanks, I really hope Andrew Scheer doesn't win. He'd been recorded as saying he doesn't think gay marriages are valid, and he seems intent on slashing societal infrastructure, much like Canada's Trump, Premier Doug Ford.Same here. I feel like I live in some kind of Twilight Zone episode where people think bad is good and good is bad.
Trump is now on record as defending a diplomat's wife who fled the UK after killing a British Citizen when she drove on the wrong side of the road. He's also abandoned former allies, the Kurds, who fought against ISIS.
Copied from Steve Hedley:
I would like to congratulate President Trump in reaching a new previously undreamed of plateau of ridiculousness and inanity. His justification for abandoning the Kurds “because they didn’t fight with us in Normandy” (world war 2), not only sums up his own imbecility perfectly but also exposes beyond repair the rapacious capitalist imperialism that he represents. Unlike Obama who attempted to put glitter on the turd that is capitalism, Trump is its unvarnished embodiment discarding previous allies as dispensable unashamedly in public and orchestrating their massacre. Obama gave liberals an excuse to see something progressive in the USA, Trump has destroyed any such illusions.
Trump is now on record as defending a diplomat's wife who fled the UK after killing a British Citizen when she drove on the wrong side of the road. He's also abandoned former allies, the Kurds, who fought against ISIS.
Copied from Steve Hedley:
I would like to congratulate President Trump in reaching a new previously undreamed of plateau of ridiculousness and inanity. His justification for abandoning the Kurds “because they didn’t fight with us in Normandy” (world war 2), not only sums up his own imbecility perfectly but also exposes beyond repair the rapacious capitalist imperialism that he represents. Unlike Obama who attempted to put glitter on the turd that is capitalism, Trump is its unvarnished embodiment discarding previous allies as dispensable unashamedly in public and orchestrating their massacre. Obama gave liberals an excuse to see something progressive in the USA, Trump has destroyed any such illusions.
He hasn't started a war (yet).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463
Wow, this could cause a serious escalation in the region and encourage a new wave of terrorism.
(https://i.imgur.com/b1OXr21.jpg)
Lunar Orbiter, You stated:QuoteTrump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
As previously mentioned, I have not read through the bulk of the posts, but I ask you - do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?
However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist...
I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?Are you claiming a good president SHOULDN'T allow that to happen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body)
Yes, that should be obvious. And I'm sure your next post will be about how Trump reversed the decision to dismantle the Office of Congressional Ethics... "See, Trump isn't bad, he cares about ethics!"I stand by what I said 100%. Why would I retract it?Are you claiming a good president SHOULDN'T allow that to happen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/outcry-after-republicans-vote-to-dismantle-independent-ethics-body)
I'd also like it demonstrated that the Democrats are this flawed. Flawed, yes, but this?"Flawed" is undoubtedly a projection of our own criteria. The major ones for me is the constant name-calling, redefinition of terms to fit an agenda, and slander of those with opposing opinions.
No matter how you spin it, he still made what you think is the right call.
Despite direct evidence otherwise, you are now following the illogical path of every conspiracy theorists by claiming to know what others are thinking,
and denying that direct evidence (i,e,. "He doesn't get credit for putting out a fire that he created") with unsubstantiated conjecture.
You are chasing your prey down the rabbit hole, because of your own prejudicial binders.
Just like the last 3 years of supposed Russian interference.
You have already decided innocence and/or guilt, so, like a CT,, you rationalize the irrational. THAT is my point, and if you can't see it, then you may as well claim we never landed on the Moon.
Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about. Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations. What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past. THAT is not logical.
Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.
Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
It is not hearsay to say...
He and his allies are...
Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK. Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016. So what slander are we talking, here?
Bad example, for a number of reasons, not the least being the von Braun's membership of the Nazi party was always a matter of necessity rather than shared sympathy with the movement.
That can be argued to be as much conjecture as the original anti-Trump quote is, and therefor remains a prime example of the continued use of CT tactics by some of the posts written here.
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list, and b) if I came home and found it empty having done so, I would consider the alcoholic the prime suspect unless he has a good explanation for how someone else got the keys or otherwise gained access. Both of these are reasonable based on the evidence. What would be unreasonable would be convicting him in the face of evidence that he actually didn't go into the cabinet and someone else took the keys and stole my liquor.
a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty, as was the OP's logically fallacious conclusion. You have just confirmed your unrecognized (by you) agreement with me on this point.
Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
It is not hearsay to say...
Things that were not brought up in the OP. Okay. Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?
He and his allies are...
All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law. I get it, but that is still conjecture. No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did, claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.
Lunar Orbiter, I am sorry, but if you would take the time to replace the subject of the president with any CT, you just MIGHT be able to see what I am talking about. Right now, you ARE as lost as they are with your prejudice.
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Also, your comment "Is it illogical to believe that an alcoholic can't be trusted with the key to your liquor cabinet?" is easily answered with you have just asked the wrong question to logically compare the situations. What YOU have done in the first post on this subject thread is come home to find the cabinet empty, but have deemed the alcoholic guilty with nothing for proof but knowledge of his past. THAT is not logical. Nothing you have claimed has any solid proof, rather relies on your own conjecture or hearsay.
I could go on, but I feel I am beating a dead horse here. Again, I am not here to defend him, but to point out the parallels in your (and others') rhetoric on this subject as a cautionary tale. Your blanket refusal to honestly consider that (to this point) is a little disturbing to me.
Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list
a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.
b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty
Things that were not brought up in the OP. Okay. Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?
All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law. I get it, but that is still conjecture. No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did, claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.
Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK. Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016. So what slander are we talking, here?
Actually, it is. If YOU support a candidate, cause, etc., you have no control over who else does, including reprehensible people. When someone then claims you and such reprehensible people have forged a bond because of such an association, they have slandered you by making a false analogy.
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?
My point has been made to anyone with non-prejudiced critical thinking skills,
and I am not here to argue incessantly with those who refuse, or are unable, to acknowledge my observation as described.
That said, I am willing to elaborate further on ONE point of contention, of your choice, should you so desire,
Wow. This has been a VERY enlightening window into the human psyche. Not totally unexpected at face value, rather I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.
I understand there has not been a lot of time since her posts. but I also notice no one else is calling gillianren out on her logical fallacy.
Latest example:
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here? From all your posts in the CT forum, you darn well should.
Lunar Orbiter, You stated:QuoteTrump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
As previously mentioned, I have not read through the bulk of the posts, but I ask you - do you still stand by that post? And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?
I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.
For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)Quote"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."
- Nancy Pelosi
Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
Wait a second. I just went back and re-read my original post in this thread.I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.
For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)Quote"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."
- Nancy Pelosi
Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.
An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.
I think you're being dishonest, MBDK (a trait of conspiracy theorists). I never even blamed the vote to gut the OCE on Trump. I said it was done by the Republicans. And that is 100% true, regardless of whether or not Trump directed them to do it. And it doesn't matter if the decision was reversed, they still wanted to do it, and that should tell you all you need to know about their corrupt intentions.
I also started the thread by saying "I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress."
So tell me again... what exactly do I need to retract?
as an inconsequential side note - Congress is not controlled by the Republicans, as they only control the Senate.
Example: Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -
"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."
Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?No one.
Okay, here's a point I'd like. If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
Since you mention it - yes, Braun's former Nazi membership would have absolutely disqualified him from public office in my opinion as a voter. That doesn't automatically make either Braun or Trump guilty of any specific crime/conspiracy theory, it just means that they are unfit to be president.Not sure what you are trying to say by including Trump in this particular way. Since he has never been a Nazi, how does this relate?
Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?No one.
https://www.mic.com/articles/161913/who-controls-the-house-of-representatives-here-s-what-house-will-look-like-in-2017
The One Hundred Fifteenth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It met in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2017, to January 3, 2019, during the final weeks of Barack Obama's presidency and the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency.
House Majority: Republican
Senate Majority: Republican
Okay, here's a point I'd like. If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
What are you talking about?Some alternate universe, apparently. Somehow I got 2017 and 2019 mixed up. I am not going to claim this as an excuse, but I think it is in my (and clarity's) best interest to refrain from further discussion until I have conquered this cold I am fighting, get off the associated meds, and catch up on my sleep. My apologies for the mistake, and inconvenience.
Not sure what you are trying to say by including Trump in this particular way. Since he has never been a Nazi, how does this relate?
I am not going to claim this as an excuse, but I think it is in my (and clarity's) best interest to refrain from further discussion until I have conquered this cold I am fighting, get off the associated meds, and catch up on my sleep. My apologies for the mistake, and inconvenience.
Okay, here's a point I'd like. If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.You say you are no fan of Trump, but you sure do spout the party line predictably.
I can do you one better. It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything. I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing. Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion.
a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.
But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.Claiming to "know" something that differs from actual evidence is a prime illustration of my point. This is even clearer when your "insight" into what really went on differs 180 degrees from this article by what can be considered a political ally of yours, one of the left-leaning news outlets -
He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.His company SETTLED twice, with no admission of guilt. That is not a conviction, nor does it necessarily indicate his personal view(s).
You correctly noted that the CT hypothesis of Braun, former Nazi then NASA career something something HOAX!!!, is inaccurate. I agree that:Which is my point.
a. Trump's documented pre-politics behavior does not make him automatically guilty of any specific malfeasance in office, just like Braun didn't automatically fake the moon landings because he once was a Nazi.
But no one is claiming that it does, so (a) is a straw man.
He was convicted, twice, in a court of law of not renting to black people.His company SETTLED twice, with no admission of guilt. That is not a conviction, nor does it necessarily indicate his personal view(s).
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?
However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.
Which is my point.
Okay, I am much better, health-wise, except for a few infrequent times when I cough like a bad engine. So, to elaborate somewhat on my point, which to be clear is:
Posters in this discussion topic sometimes use untrue, illogical and/or exaggerated claims, as well as other tactics often used by CTs, and should be mindful of such actions.
A couple of recent examples:But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.Claiming to "know" something that differs from actual evidence is a prime illustration of my point. This is even clearer when your "insight" into what really went on differs 180 degrees from this article by what can be considered a political ally of yours, one of the left-leaning news outlets -
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html
I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton. If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters. But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own. Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.
If supporting Trump (or Clinton, or anyone else for that matter) is objectively a bad thing, then one should be able to show that without examining the moral qualities of other people who support Trump (or Clinton or whomever).
For what it's worth, I'm going to make myself really popular by quoting one of your earlier statements, that seems to have kicked off this whole flurry:QuoteHowever, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.
QuoteHowever, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I'm not sure what the contradictory message is here, but the "logic" used is discussed here,Her contradictory message is the thinly veiled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
under "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy".
Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.Except when you want them to. Still, conjecture by you. Even liberal CNN had a different opinion, as stated in the link I previously provided. At least be honest enough to admit it.
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people"Which he has, but since you are now so invested in your position, why would YOU bother to honestly check the facts? Took me less than 5 seconds for video of KKK position.
then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racistsWell?
it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.I only used the term "speculation". Unless you are talking pure fantasy, ALL speculation involves some facts...JUST like a CT's argument.
Since MBDK has failed to explain why I need to retract my original post, maybe you would like to take a crack at it.Did you forget, or not even read Reply#636? My response to your question regarding retraction(s) from your OP? In case you missed it, here is the relevant portion of my concession:
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.That is your prerogative, but I think evidence (as previously listed) does indicate some significant prejudice on your part.
I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton. If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters. But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own. Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.
I don't want to speak for Gillianren, but I think you're misunderstanding her. She isn't saying "Joe the Trump Voter" is responsible for the behaviour of other Trump voters. He might have voted for Trump for a variety of perfectly normal reasons, such as the economy or loyalty to the Republican party. But if a large group of racists endorse Donald Trump and he refuses to disavow them it makes it appear that he agrees with their racist beliefs, which if true, would make him a racist. At that point "Joe the Trump Voter" is now supporting a racist President, even if that's not why he supports him.
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people", then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racists.
No. No, that's wrong. If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis. That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them. And if you are . . . .
This "whole flurry" was kicked off by MBDK taking what I said out of context. I stated in my original post that I wanted this thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions of Trump and the Republican controlled Congress. I gave as an example a vote held by Republicans just hours earlier that aimed to dismantle an independent ethics office. I posted about it before the vote was eventually reversed, but regardless, I still think it says a lot about Republicans that that was their first action upon being sworn in. But MBDK wants you to believe I was unfairly pinning this on Donald Trump, that it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.
I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.
Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.Except when you want them to. Still, conjecture by you. Even liberal CNN had a different opinion, as stated in the link I previously provided. At least be honest enough to admit it.
If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people"Which he has, but since you are now so invested in your position, why would YOU bother to honestly check the facts? Took me less than 5 seconds for video of KKK position.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?
The Nazi thing is also entirely out-of-context and untrue. But, it is so ingrained in the media, I had to spend 10 whole seconds to find his actual words.
From - (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html)QuoteHere are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.That is your prerogative, but I think evidence (as previously listed) does indicate some significant prejudice on your part.
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.
Here's what I actually said.QuoteI happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement. Do you have any objection to what I actually said?
I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.
I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.
Here's what I actually said.QuoteI happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember. I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy. I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing. Etc.
I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement. Do you have any objection to what I actually said?
I'm objecting to the idea that anything the Democrats have ever done (at least in my lifetime) has even come close to the levels of blatant corruption exhibited by Republicans, especially the current Trump Republicans. This is specifically what I'm replying to:QuoteI've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.
When did the Democrats block a Supreme Court nomination the way McConnell blocked Merrick Garland? When did a Democrat President make almost weekly visits to a golf club that they owned in order to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense? When did a Democrat President ever permanently tarnish the reputations of the Department of Justice, FBI, and national intelligence agencies in order to cast doubt on their investigations into them? When did a Democrat President ever call into question the House's constitutional oversight duties or power to impeach? When has a Democrat President ever acted more friendly to a hostile dictator than they did to an ally?
Yeah, the thing about "oh, they weren't calling themselves Nazis" is that they were explicitly calling themselves Nazis, before Trump said they didn't. It was explicitly a Nazi protest. Everyone knew that except, I guess, Trump. And the people who want me to put his statement in context who are themselves missing the broader context of the known facts of the time.
Democratic. Democratic Party. Democratic President.
Back to your regularly scheduled freakout.
Democratic. Democratic Party. Democratic President.
Thanks. I thought the Democrat/Democratic were interchangeable, but according to Wikipedia "Democrat" is really just an epithet used by Republicans. Good to know.QuoteBack to your regularly scheduled freakout.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
Trump didn't do that. McConnell and Ryan did that. Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts. McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office.
I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants.
As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it. The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet.
I started calling him racist because, pretty much as soon as I knew anything about him, it became clear he was racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_TrumpConfirmation bias? Democratic hypocrisy? Both sides have their points.
Your link doesn't work.Sorry about that.
I already linked to a CNN interview with Trump in which he refused to disavow David Duke's endorsement prior to the 2016 election.I suggest you re-watch that link, and put it in its proper context with the one I just provided, then search your soul to see if you have enough integrity to admit you were wrong and/or fooled.
I would be more willing to believe Trump misspoke or was misunderstood if it was the only example of him being racist.How many of your old CT friends did you employ to help you move your goalposts? SMH
All of my reasons for distrusting Trump come from his known behaviour, and the fact that he has been taken to court multiple times for it. What I don't get is how anyone can see how he has behaved in the past and still trust him enough to manage a paper route, nevermind the country.Confirmation bias. On both side.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.
Trump didn't do that. McConnell and Ryan did that. Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts. McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office.
I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants.
As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it. The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet.
Oh, believe me, I agree that McConnell and all of the other Republicans who are protecting Trump (especially Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Bill Barr, and Doug Collins) are a big part of the problem. They might even be a bigger problem than Trump. But Trump isn't innocent. He's the one who Tweets 100 times a day about how you can't trust the DoJ, FBI, intelligence agencies, Congress, the free press, whistle blowers, career diplomats, decorated war veterans, or pretty much anyone else that tries to expose his corruption. He pushes the ridiculous "deep state" conspiracy theory. Those are the kinds of attacks on the "checks and balances" that I'm talking about.
And when I said Trump exposed the "ineffectiveness of the checks and balances" it means a lot of different things. The authors of the Constitution didn't seem to anticipate that the majority of Congressmen would circle around a corrupt President to protect him. That would require the entire majority party to be corrupt.
Just shows how the left ignores reality and keeps pressing lies with impunity.
“He doesn’t have a birth certificate, or if he does, there’s something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me—and I have no idea whether this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be—that where it says ‘religion,’ it might have ‘Muslim.’ ” -- Donald Trump
I would be more willing to believe Trump misspoke or was misunderstood if it was the only example of him being racist.How many of your old CT friends did you employ to help you move your goalposts? SMH
All of my reasons for distrusting Trump come from his known behaviour, and the fact that he has been taken to court multiple times for it. What I don't get is how anyone can see how he has behaved in the past and still trust him enough to manage a paper route, nevermind the country.Confirmation bias. On both side.
EDIT: And as a side note, from the evidence in this post, do you still wonder why there are concerns about "fake news"?
The left ignores reality? The left? You found a compilation of Trump disavowing the KKK after he was criticized for publicly refusing to do so. He only disavowed them when he realized it could cost him the election if he didn't.What an odd thing to say. Obviously you didn't watch and/or comprehend the link I provided, as his FIRST disavowal was from 2000.
You're also ignoring ALL of the other examples of his racism.How did I do that? MY comment included quoting the link that contained almost everything you just mentioned. That is actually the opposite of ignoring them. All I pointed out was a counter-argument, that clearly shows you have no smoking gun, and confirmation bias IS a very real thing.
I don't know, how many of your CT friends did you employ to help you ignore the tons of evidence that conflicts with your belief that Trump isn't racist?Since I am kind of a bulldog for science and reason, I don't really have any friends that are CT. And here YOU are claiming I ignored tons of evidence (which I didn't, as stated above), all the while ignoring the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts, yourself. Are you beginning to see a familiar pattern here?
Yes, there is certainly confirmation bias on your side. "Trump says he isn't racist. Case closed!"Denial of the other evidence i provided in my links is willful ignorance.
Fake news like you find on Fox? Or maybe the fake news about Obama not being an American? Or the fake news that Obama was going to impose Sharia Law and take all your guns? Or the fake news about Hillary running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant? Yes, that is a concern.Yes it is. Do you not agree the fake news from the liberal side is also of a concern?
The left ignores reality? The left? You found a compilation of Trump disavowing the KKK after he was criticized for publicly refusing to do so. He only disavowed them when he realized it could cost him the election if he didn't.What an odd thing to say. Obviously you didn't watch and/or comprehend the link I provided, as his FIRST disavowal was from 2000.
You're also ignoring ALL of the other examples of his racism.How did I do that? MY comment included quoting the link that contained almost everything you just mentioned.
Since I am kind of a bulldog for science and reason, I don't really have any friends that are CT.
Gee, for someone who isn't a racist, he sure has had to respond to people saying he's racist a lot, eh?Look up the logical fallacy of "The Big Lie", as that is another tactic political parties use. That video, still directly contradicted your (and others') statement concerning his failure to disavow Duke and the KKK. Why can you not even admit that?
What are you even talking about? What link? The one in your reply to Gillianren?Yes. I quoted her statement which included the wiki link to all the Trump racist claims. Plenty of circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun - just prejudicial interpretations, a.k.a. confirmation bias.
If that's the case, all I see it someone who is even more brainwashed than you basically saying "See, Trump can't be racist! He did something good for a black person!". None of it directly responds to the examples of his racism that I mentioned.Other than "confirmation bias", I never claimed to. YOU, on the other hand, said:
Just because a racist says they aren't racist doesn't mean it's true. Actions speak louder than words.So that was also why I provided the link with examples of his actions, but you seem to have forgotten your last quote already.
For the last 19 years I have spent much of my time debunking conspiracy theorists using science and reason, including here in this forum that I provide at no cost to you, but at great expense to me. Don't you DARE tell me that I am a conspiracy theorist. You can **** off any time now.Well, in that case, I do apologize. I was under the impression that you used to argue that there WAS a Moon Hoax, and that you had reasoned through it enough to change your mind. Still, per my previous assertion, oh so many posts ago, we are ALL able to fall into certain logically fallacious lines of reasoning, and my entire point was to try to point out what I saw as such lapses. Just as a CT can rigidly adhere to those tactics, I think we should be on guard to identify and prevent the same.
Well, in that case, I do apologize. I was under the impression that you used to argue that there WAS a Moon Hoax, and that you had reasoned through it enough to change your mind. Still, per my previous assertion, oh so many posts ago, we are ALL able to fall into certain logically fallacious lines of reasoning, and my entire point was to try to point out what I saw as such lapses. Just as a CT can rigidly adhere to those tactics, I think we should be on guard to identify and prevent the same.
As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can.
He's conflating you with the original owner of the site, LO.
"No smoking gun"? What would count as a smoking gun that proved Trump was a racist?
Except for the part where many of the "impartial" Senators are actively working with the administration, and any number of them have flatly said they refuse to consider new evidence.
Except for the part where many of the "impartial" Senators are actively working with the administration, and any number of them have flatly said they refuse to consider new evidence.
I still don't understand how people blame the DNC for the quality of candidates. They can only support the people who run, after all--and Trump is definitely proof that it's possible to overrule the wishes of the party officials, who definitely would've preferred a more biddable candidate.
Technically, Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
Technically, Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
And his supporters wonder why the Democratic party hasn't been supportive of his campaign. Why would they be if he's only a Democrat when he wants to run for President?
Berners by and large are ... not bright.
....
And when Bernie wasn't the nominee, they voted for Trump. Because.
If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.Technically, Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
And his supporters wonder why the Democratic party hasn't been supportive of his campaign. Why would they be if he's only a Democrat when he wants to run for President?
If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
That's a good thing. With multiple competing parties, assuming one party doesn't simply sweep all of the different elected positions, the fact that leaders don't have a strong majority support requires more cooperation and compromise to maintain their power. They are more inclined to give up some concessions in order to be in the driver's seat and try to get the things that mean most to them.If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
So Canada fails the fair part.If the US had a sane and fair electoral system the Left would have its own party, so he wouldn't need to be.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
As a Canadian, I can say that having multiple federal parties to choose from isn't necessarily sane or good for the country. It leads to parties winning even though they don't have the majority of votes. So be careful what you wish for.
Our presidents keep winning without the plurality of the vote now, so I would say we are used to it. My impression is that multi-party coalition governments drive at least a modicum of different viewpoints talking to each other; would you say that is not really the case? Would a ranked choice voting system make the multiple party system work more smoothly?
…. And repeal the faithless-elector laws, freeing up electors to vote their consciences.If we don't prohibit faithless electors, then we might as well just elect the president by popular vote. If my vote is going to count for something, then I want to be sure that my elector is required to vote the will of the people in his or her district.
If we don't prohibit faithless electors, then we might as well just elect the president by popular vote.
If my vote is going to count for something, then I want to be sure that my elector is required to vote the will of the people in his or her district.
And repeal the faithless-elector laws, freeing up electors to vote their consciences.
What are faithless-elector laws? I have never heard that term before.
As I recall, faithless electors are now the reason a second black man, Colin Powell, has gotten an EC vote--and I know one of ours in Washington flatly refused to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton and cast it for a Native American instead, probably the first Native American to get an EC vote.
Jonathan Pie is a UK spoof news reporter but his evaluation of the impeachment process and Trumps Acquittal is spot on.
What witnesses? The ones that the Senate wouldn't even listen to before making up their minds?Pretty clear from the text they are (quote)"the Democrats’ witnesses* testified (unquote)
In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”In his opinion. There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion. No one should EVER be convicted on such grounds. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.
Mitt Romney Republican.
In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”In his opinion. There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion.
Mitt Romney Republican.
No one should EVER be convicted on such grounds. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.
There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge).No. This IS conjecture. What don't you understand about THAT?
The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses.Completely irrelevant to the FACT that all they stated was their OPINION. What don't you understand about THAT?
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. Since he has been acquitted, and rightly so based on the lack of concrete evidence, it is a matter of record that he wasn't, at least in this case. Based on your previous smear attempts, I guess it is NOT so odd that you should think differently.
There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge).No. This IS conjecture. What don't you understand about THAT?
The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses.Completely irrelevant to the FACT that all they stated was their OPINION. What don't you understand about THAT?
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. Since he has been acquitted...
and rightly so based on the lack of concrete evidence
Based on your previous smear attempts, I guess it is NOT so odd that you should think differently.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200208/d6fb47b0f9105078b9b5591da999146d.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
I thought you were leaving? Should I help?
How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying?Because YOU are filling in the blanks. That is the very definition of conjecture. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.
If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.Yes, I would find it suspicious, but I am not entitled to claim a specific crime was proven to occur based solely on suspicion. Why do YOU do so?
For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that collaborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.Yes, discussions happened, but the meaning of them, since specific conditions were NOT mentioned, ARE pure conjecture. What the documents said, and their impact, are also conjecture. I could argue thousands of other reasons the documents were blocked, including national security, but without the actual evidence, my assumptions hold no water, either.
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. I think people should be subject to the same legal requirements regardless of social or political stature.
He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there. Realize, too, that Democrats during the House proceedings denied witnesses and concealed testimony that weakened their already shoddy case.
Let me give you a scenario...Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty, you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence, and as such, should be able to testify accordingly (regarding its proof of murder) without being in violation of security rules. Also, a House committee can wrangle the pertinent information from him (albeit, in such circumstances, surely not without a protracted legal battle). Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
***BE AWARE THE VIDEO CONTAINS VERY COLOURFUL LANGUAGE***
Jonathan Pie is a UK spoof news reporter but his evaluation of the impeachment process and Trumps Acquittal is spot on.
....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
Let me start with this.I thought you were leaving? Should I help?
In post #680, you wrote this: "You can **** off any time now."
My reply to that sentence was, "As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can."
Well, I did it as long as I felt I could, and any offer you extend to "help" me is actually justification for my return. This is because, once again, you are using a CT tactic by threatening to ostracize me, apparently since you do not agree with what I have to say.
How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying?Because YOU are filling in the blanks. That is the very definition of conjecture. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.
If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.Yes, I would find it suspicious, but I am not entitled to claim a specific crime was proven to occur based solely on suspicion. Why do YOU do so?
Also, it doesn't matter what I, or you THINK Trump is trying to do, because our thoughts and "suspicions" are not proof, by any means, especially legally.
For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that collaborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.Yes, discussions happened, but the meaning of them, since specific conditions were NOT mentioned, ARE pure conjecture. What the documents said, and their impact, are also conjecture. I could argue thousands of other reasons the documents were blocked, including national security, but without the actual evidence, my assumptions hold no water, either.
No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.I don't. I think people should be subject to the same legal requirements regardless of social or political stature.
He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there. Realize, too, that Democrats during the House proceedings denied witnesses and concealed testimony that weakened their already shoddy case.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/schiff-house-democrats-conceal-testimony-of-18th-witness-from-trump-team/
Let me give you a scenario...Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty...
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence
Also, a House committee can wrangle the pertinent information from him (albeit, in such circumstances, surely not without a protracted legal battle).
Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.
Your logic train has completely derailed. You went from complaining about the intelligence level of some Trump supporters to listing a litany of allegations you have against Trump himself, all the while listing some obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong.....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
No, it isn't at all
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days
I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.
THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!
IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there.
Let me give you a scenario...Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty, you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence, and as such, should be able to testify accordingly (regarding its proof of murder) without being in violation of security rules.[/quote]
Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?
Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.
Your logic train has completely derailed. You went from complaining about the intelligence level of some Trump supporters to listing a litany of allegations you have against Trump himself, all the while listing some obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong.....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.I agree. However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left. That is my entire point.
No, it isn't at all
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days
I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.
THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!
It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/Semantics. None were called to testify. From your own link -
It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/Semantics. None were called to testify. From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."
It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/Semantics. None were called to testify. From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."
Goal post move.
Witnesses are witnesses. Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal still undertook questioning, under oath - and their testimony is still valid.
Trump's impeachment trial is the only one of the 19 impeachment trials in the history of the USA, which did not hear from any witnesses at all. It wasn't a trial, it was a cover up, orchestrated by Trump and his minions, and carried out by every Republican Senator but one, the only honorable Republican among the scumbags. History will judge them harshly.
As for obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong, allow me to briefly list them:
No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
Hillary is too obvious, but do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims?
Before you answer, you may just want to chew on THIS for a while (in regards to the $$$)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/
And remember, these must apply to EVERYONE on the left, or you need to strike "no-one" from your contentions.
The new decade in American politics has started with a hangover that keeps on getting worse - a quickening of the downward democratic spiral we have witnessed over the past 30 years.It also includes the handy word "hyperpartisanship".
So much of what has gone awry has been resident in the trial of Donald Trump.
The partisan vitriol. The degradation of debate. The use of what were previously rarely used weapons - in this instance impeachment - to escalate America's ceaseless political war.
Misrepresenting facts again I see.When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.
You are, I take it, accusing the Clintons of abusing their office, right.Wrong. I made no such claim, but provided a link that shows how they "used" the power of their office to garner enormous wealth from book deals and speaking engagements after their terms. My "Hilary" remark was predicated on your "hide evidence", and "above the law" comments.
"but I know a president who has..."Well, I have found information where the facts only contradict this particular contention of yours.
And this last one is a real doozy...
5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...
2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays
All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort
Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.
US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).
When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.
Wrong. I made no such claim, but provided a link that shows how they "used" the power of their office to garner enormous wealth from book deals and speaking engagements after their terms.Another goal post move.
Now, from that continuation, I am not going to accuse YOU of misrepresenting facts, but I think you should double check your source(s). I didn't even bother to look into your other complaints, just the one you considered to be extraordinary.My source disagrees. When I have more time, I will post them"but I know a president who has..."Well, I have found information where the facts only contradict this particular contention of yours.
And this last one is a real doozy...
5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...
2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays
All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort
Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.
US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...
From-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-force-finds-air-crews-stayed-trump-resort/story?id=65594325
"An Air Force official said an internal review of the 659 overnight stops found that about 6% (39) of the overnight stays were at the Trump Turnberry resort located 20 miles from the airport."
"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."Well, they would, wouldn't they
"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend TrumpWell you are making a bang up job of look like a devoted supporter!
but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s). Don't always accept everything, even from normally credible sources, at face value. It is a rare occasion indeed when there is not more to the story.
With that said, I don't expect an answer to the question I asked in post #733 regarding the blanket statements smartcooky made that I took issue with. The sheer numbers of people who would have to be considered completely free from any associated guilt make them completely implausible. Still, as a last little "gotcha", remember how much YOU have complained when your question(s) has(have) been ignored by CTs.I have answered your questions. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I haven't answered it
"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."Well, they would, wouldn't they
Wrong. I NEVER made that claim, and expressly pointed out where you are 100& in error on YOUR above quoted claim. Until you can accept this undeniable and obviously provable FACT, and withdrawn your blatantly false statement, I refuse to have further discourse with such a hate-blinded person.When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.
And at what point is it appropriate to let emotion take a part in this when...When you can do so without resorting to half-truths and unsupported claims (not saying YOU have, just everyone in general, myself included). Definitely do not allow yourself to rage to the point where even the most basic of things become distorted, as smartcooky has unfortunately done in his last couple of posts (as noted in my last couple of posts).
"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."
So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do. And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).
Such as, for example, suggesting that Trump's accquittal in an impeachment trial where he blocked evidence and witnesses shows him to not be above the law? I repeat my earlier question: If he, as the indictee, gets to decide (or indeed have any say at all) what evidence is seen and what witnesses testify, how is that not abusing his power and being above the law? Who else gets to decide how their own trial goes in that way?
Wrong. I NEVER made that claim, and expressly pointed out where you are 100& in error on YOUR above quoted claim.When did I do that? I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.
Hillary is too obvious, but do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims?
Before you answer, you may just want to chew on THIS for a while (in regards to the $$$)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/
Until you can accept this undeniable and obviously provable FACT, and withdrawn your blatantly false statement, I refuse to have further discourse with such a hate-blinded person.
.....I won't reply to smartcooky, until he acknowledges his false accusation where he claimed I misrepresented facts?
...the use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a Republican dogwhistle.
...the use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a Republican dogwhistle.
Please clarify this for me. How do you refer to individual members of the Democratic Party?
Ie.
"Ronald Reagan was a Republican."
"John F. Kennedy was a __________."
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
...the use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a Republican dogwhistle.
Please clarify this for me. How do you refer to individual members of the Democratic Party?
Ie.
"Ronald Reagan was a Republican."
"John F. Kennedy was a __________."
In that case, "Democrat" is acceptable. However, "the Democrat Party" is a Republican usage.
This has been the usage since the 1840s. FOX News and other conservative outlets deliberately use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" because it's mildly triggering in the same way confusing "loose" and "lose" is mildly triggering.
I'd note that merely saying that the Democratic Party is "the plantation" is also a deliberate dogwhistle on the part of a party that is primarily responsible for keeping laws in place that are bad for minorities, claiming that the only reason to vote for the Democrats is that you've been told do so. Despite things like a President who still believes five young men are responsible for a high-profile crime (despite the fact that the DNA evidence completely exculpates them) for no reason I can see beyond the colour of their skin.
I'd note that merely saying that the Democratic Party is "the plantation" is also a deliberate dogwhistle on the part of a party that is primarily responsible for keeping laws in place that are bad for minorities, claiming that the only reason to vote for the Democrats is that you've been told do so. Despite things like a President who still believes five young men are responsible for a high-profile crime for no reason I can see beyond the colour of their skin.
Bloomberg should buy up all of Trump's debt and then call the loans or foreclose
That is kind of what I expect China to do with the US debt owed to them if Trump keeps antagonizing them.
Well, how safe is everyone feeling in a country where the entire CDC pandemic team was fired and not replaced?
Well, how safe is everyone feeling in a country where the entire CDC pandemic team was fired and not replaced?A boneheaded move, indeed. However, I feel just as safe as I would if there WAS a team in place. I don't see how such a team would have any practical effect at this time. First of all, the WHO does NOT consider it pandemic...yet...(although news coverage of it certainly is). Secondly,
Well, how safe is everyone feeling in a country where the entire CDC pandemic team was fired and not replaced?
A boneheaded move, indeed. However, I feel just as safe as I would if there WAS a team in place. I don't see how such a team would have any practical effect at this time.
Really? Perhaps this will make you think again. That Dear Leader you adore so much...I never made ANY such comment, or inference. I only pointed out some of the unfortunate similarities between some of the posts in this topic stream where people were using (most likely unwittingly) tactics and fallacious logic that is also seen in CTs arguments.
Really? Perhaps this will make you think again. That Dear Leader you adore so much...I never made ANY such comment, or inference.
Then you should have absolutely no trouble producing one that supports your exact accusations. I won't hold my breath.Really? Perhaps this will make you think again. That Dear Leader you adore so much...I never made ANY such comment, or inference.
Rubbish
Most of your posts in this thread absolutely REEK of undying support for the Orange Turd. I am at a loss to understand how you could not see that.
In any case, like a good conspiracy theorist, you failed to address a single point I made in my post (not that I really expected you to) preferring instead to sidestep the issue by feigning indignation at being allegedly misunderstood.As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man. I am just pointing out YOUR (and other posters') instances where you have failed to adhere to true and logical discourse, but would criticize CTs when they do likewise.
Then you should have absolutely no trouble producing one that supports your exact accusations. I won't hold my breath.
As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.
As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.
Stupid Tuesday has come and gone, and we're basically down to Biden and Bernie.
=sigh=
What part of "supports your exact accusations" don't you understand? Let's see. Instead, you have just ignored the specifics of my post, and made a shotgun response that includes trying to shift the burden of proof on me. Congratulations for the CT trifecta!Then you should have absolutely no trouble producing one that supports your exact accusations. I won't hold my breath.
Here, take your pick. There are a few to choose from
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1259
There are plenty in there where you take the opposite view from a poster criticizing Trump.
I cannot find one where you take agree with a poster criticizing Trump, or taking the opposite view of a poster praising Trump. Perhaps you can help prove that wrong by finding some...More irrelevance as it pertains to my oft repeated stated intention for my posts.
I won't hold my breath.
Your interpretation of "defending" has been exposed above. The "personal attack" (associating LO with having CTs for friends, at least historically) was an honest mistake based on unconfirmed information from several sources in the past. I have apologized for this.As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.
And yet you continue to do so, to the point of personally attacking the owner of this very forum when he criticized your position.
I think you are trying to pretend that you have not nailed your colours to the mast, but your body of work (which I have linked above) clearly indicates that you have.What you think is not supported by the full context of my posts.
If you have no interest in defending Trump, then stop defending him... it really is that simple?
Seriously--you don't want to defend him? Name a thing he's done wrong.I already did in my last reply to you. Didn't you notice?
Not really, as explained in my responses to smartcookie.As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.
And yet you have done so repeatedly.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that the moon landings really happened, and the belief that Trump is corrupt and racist is also supported by evidence. So if you want to keep using the "you're acting like a conspiracy theorist" argument, you might want to do some self-reflection first.The "evidence" I have taken to task (with a couple of acknowledged and retracted errors), does not hold up to scrutiny, yet has been endorsed on this topic thread using the same tactics as CTs do. That evidence is NOT all-inclusive of everything posted, nor has it EVER been claimed as such. Yet, you and others continue to rabidly argue its authenticity without merit*. I suggest YOU re-examine some of your arguments in an unemotional state, if you can.
*As an example, let's revisit the racism claim based upon one of Trump's businesses refusing to allow a couple of color to rent a dwelling. There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy, or made such a demand in any way. The statement by the person who denied the couple their due consideration only claimed the policy came vaguely from "above". How many layers of management are there between that person and Trump?
There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy
So, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing)
Wiki says differently - "The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner."*As an example, let's revisit the racism claim based upon one of Trump's businesses refusing to allow a couple of color to rent a dwelling. There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy, or made such a demand in any way. The statement by the person who denied the couple their due consideration only claimed the policy came vaguely from "above". How many layers of management are there between that person and Trump?
From what I understand, the Trump organization has always been fairly small, just him and a handful of others (not counting the contractors that he likes to rip off).
Regardless, as the head of the organization he bears some of the responsibility. Or are you saying he was totally unaware of the problem until he found himself in court? Surely he could have overrode the decision of his underling if he disagreed with it and allowed the couple to rent, and I find it difficult to believe the opportunity to do so didn't exist before going to court.Conjecture based on no concrete evidence. Would you let a CT get away with that?
Rationalizing a dearth of evidence is also a common CT ploy. Regardless, in this instance, the result is still no direct evidence. Would you let a CT get away with this?QuoteThere is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policyRacists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing.
First of all, your attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted. Would you let a CT get away with this?QuoteSo, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing)That is not even close to being "provably false". At best you have made the case that it's unclear whether Trump personally blocked the couple from renting an apartment... but you have not proved that it wasn't his decision.
You are using conjecture to pass the blame to some unknown employee who Trump permitted to make important decisions on his behalf. That person must have a name... what is it?Talk to the FBI. They are the ones who redacted names from the complaint documents.
And of course you ignore all of the other allegations of racism that have surrounded Trump for years.Why do -YOU ignore the qualifying statement I made? Would you let a CT do THAT?
The "evidence" I have taken to task (with a couple of acknowledged and retracted errors), does not hold up to scrutiny, yet has been endorsed on this topic thread using the same tactics as CTs do. That evidence is NOT all-inclusive of everything posted, nor has it EVER been claimed as such.[/quote]
From what I understand, the Trump organization has always been fairly small, just him and a handful of others (not counting the contractors that he likes to rip off).Wiki says differently - "The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner."
Mr. Trump often boasts of the size of the Trump Organization. “It’s a big company,” he said in the interview last spring. A spokeswoman said the business employed “tens of thousands.”
But industry experts estimate that no more than 4,000 people work for the Trump Organization worldwide. And executives say that the three floors that make up the headquarters appear to have no more than 150 employees.
It is a family business, as everyone involved is quick to explain. And the management structure is informal if not confusing, with deputies constantly buzzing in and out of the boss’s office.
“We kind of run a little bit like a mom-and-pop in that sense,” Donald Trump Jr. said in a 2011 deposition for a lawsuit involving a Florida development. “I guess there is an organizational chart, but in theory, there is not too many levels.” He added: “Could I make one? Yes. Is there one officially? Not that I’m aware of.”
Regardless, as the head of the organization he bears some of the responsibility. Or are you saying he was totally unaware of the problem until he found himself in court? Surely he could have overrode the decision of his underling if he disagreed with it and allowed the couple to rent, and I find it difficult to believe the opportunity to do so didn't exist before going to court.Conjecture based on no concrete evidence. Would you let a CT get away with that?
From -
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html
"While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties, he was on hand while they were in place, working out of a cubicle in Trump Management’s Brooklyn offices as early as the summer of 1968."
Please note that I included the entire quote for accuracy, but despite the article's clear bias, the FACT is still there to be read - "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties"
Rationalizing a dearth of evidence is also a common CT ploy.QuoteThere is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policyRacists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing.
First of all, your attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted. Would you let a CT get away with this?QuoteSo, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing)That is not even close to being "provably false". At best you have made the case that it's unclear whether Trump personally blocked the couple from renting an apartment... but you have not proved that it wasn't his decision.
Secondly, please notice my parenthesized "the court thing". My only mention of "court" in the post you quoted was this sentence - "Others have claimed Trump lost the lawsuit brought by the couple, when in fact it never went to court."
Still, the FACT remains such a claim of loss is provably false. Would you let a CT get away with such a false claim?
You are using conjecture to pass the blame to some unknown employee who Trump permitted to make important decisions on his behalf. That person must have a name... what is it?Talk to the FBI. They are the ones who redacted names from the complaint documents.
And of course you ignore all of the other allegations of racism that have surrounded Trump for years.Why do -YOU ignore the qualifying statement I made?
Racists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing. That would allow it to be used against them in court later. The policy would most likely be an unspoken rule that could be easily denied. I'll also point out that a lot of racist people don't consider themselves racist and would deny it if accused. That is why we look at his behavior, not just at what he says. Actions speak louder than words.
Do you forget where this discussion stems from?Of course not. You seem to have forgotten, or perhaps failed to noticed, my reason for interjecting, though. Allow me to repost part of my very first post on this topic.
Several people asked you why you have repeatedly defended Trump.And I have repeatedly answered this truthfully. Just as in my first post, I am not here to defend him, just to point out that some bits of "evidence" used to lambaste him are similar in context, if not identical, to CT tactics. You, and others seem to have just ignored this only expressed reason for my posts, and run amok pursuing your own agendas. Sound familiar?
pretending that the other accusations don't exist or aren't important, you're essentially defending himNo. Other accusations are irrelevant, when considering a specific one that has no tangible support. That's would be like giving validity to a claim that Jeffery Dahmer was responsible for one or more missing persons in his town based solely on the fact that he was so evil.
First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.
I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders, and I honestly don't understand why. He would benefit the vast majority of Americans (if he got his way, at least) but for some reason people want to protect billionaires while they funnel more and more money out of your bank accounts and into theirs. I would fight to protect the healthcare system we have in Canada, and can't imagine having to choose between dying or going bankrupt from hospital bills.
I will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.
I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders...
I won't deny that most news organizations have gone out of their way to paint Bernie in a negative light, but frankly they haven't had to work that hard.
He only joined the Democratic party to run for President.
He is the one candidate that is truly left-wing - maybe not "seize the means of production" left, but not that far removed.
He has spoken favorably of the old Soviet Union in the past.
And he's making promises he knows he can't keep
QuoteI will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.
I don't want an "exciting" President. I don't want a President who's in the news every goddamned day for saying or doing something stupid. I want a President who's competent, picks competent people to run the various departments, and basically just does the job.
And the best way to avoid 4 years of Hunterghazi is to keep the House and flip the Senate. Which we need to do anyway because RBG isn't going to last another 4 years, and McConnell has proven he's perfectly willing to let a SCOTUS seat remain empty as long as it takes to get a Republican President.
The Senate should be the focus of every American this election, not the White House.
I think it goes beyond just Bernie. It seems like if you say the word "socialism" around some Americans they suffer anxiety attacks and don't sleep for a month. The wealthy have done an amazing job convincing people that it's in their best interests to let them hoard all the money
Stupid Tuesday has come and gone, and we're basically down to Biden and Bernie.
=sigh=
Some opinions from an outside observer:
I liked Kamala Harris a lot, and Elizabeth Warren too. It doesn't make sense that they received so little support. Of the remaining people running (last time I checked) I'd vote for Warren. I also liked Andrew Yang a lot. People didn't take him seriously, but he at least seems to be aware of what is coming our way economically.
I would have been okay with Pete Buttigieg too, but he became more and more moderate during the course of his campaign. He's young, so I think it makes more sense for him to run for Congress or as a Governor first anyway.
I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders, and I honestly don't understand why. He would benefit the vast majority of Americans (if he got his way, at least) but for some reason people want to protect billionaires while they funnel more and more money out of your bank accounts and into theirs. I would fight to protect the healthcare system we have in Canada, and can't imagine having to choose between dying or going bankrupt from hospital bills.
I think Michael Bloomberg is more interested in beating Bernie Sanders than he is in beating Trump. He just wants to protect his wealth and keep the trillion dollar tax break that Trump provided, so I can't take him seriously when he talks about things like fighting climate change. As far as billionaire politicians go, I liked Tom Steyer a whole lot more than Bloomberg.
I will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.
The bolded section above reminds me of a quote attributed (I understand mistakenly) to John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Also, that attitude to the rich I think underpins some of Trump's attractiveness to white working class men who voted for him: they see much of themselves in him, and his success is something they can aspire to.
As for the various Democratic aspirants to the Presidential nomination - a lot of them have drawbacks of various sorts: age, inexperience, questionable pasts, questionable policies. As these shortcomings have been publicised during the Democratic debates they simply hand ammunition to Trump to use all over again in the Presidential election campaign.
My candidate of choice had been Elizabeth Warren, though I was frankly concerned about her age--I want a President considerably closer to my age; I'm 43, which is at the low end of eligibility, but I want a President below retirement age. It's a stressful job, and I worry about someone in their 70s or 80s surviving a first term, let alone a second.
Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions. That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law. This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.
Yeah, there are good people on both sides ::)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tt9wecso8e5lhc4/Giorgio-DefendsTrump.png?raw=1)
Seriously. If you're not here to defend Trump, you're doing an awfully good impersonation of someone who is.While I swear on a bible? Sibrel would be proud of this copy-cat tactic. Your request remains irrelevant to flaws I pointed out.
List things he does that you disagree with.
MBDK, what do you think of the stable genius's latest claim about the COVID19 death rates? Apparently he knows more than the WHO.My opinion on this sideline has not wavered since my original post on this topic:
Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions. That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law. This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.
Yeah, there are good people on both sides ::)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tt9wecso8e5lhc4/Giorgio-DefendsTrump.png?raw=1)
Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.
"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"
NOTE: Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.
No. I clearly stated my purpose in my first post. I have tried to adhere to it, and if anything have acquiesced to some aspects of other posters' comments. You, and others, can't argue your way around the similarities that some of your claims have with CTs' flawed lines of reasoning. Instead, you demand other, irrelevant to my original post, actions/words from me that prop up your more reasonable conclusions. Why I have to keep explaining this SIMPLE concept is very much akin to trying to explain basic physics to a CT. You really need to take a step back, look at my complaint in conjunction with similar complaints YOU have made regarding CT posts/tactics, and if you CAN'T identify the parallels, you are essentially just as close-minded as they are.Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions. That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law. This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.
Yeah, there are good people on both sides ::)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tt9wecso8e5lhc4/Giorgio-DefendsTrump.png?raw=1)
Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.
"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"
NOTE: Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.
My problem with you is that you seem to only be interested in pointing out flawed conclusions on one side, those that show Trump in a bad light.
The only "galloping in their own closed loop" happening here is by you. I seems you are so biased towards Trump, you are unable to see how that bias looks when observed from the outside. You can only come out in support of him (and against his opponents) so many times before it becomes suspicious.
ETA: If you believe that Trump is a good guy, a law abiding citizen who has only ever surrounded himself with the best people, then I will leave this here for you to ponderIgnoring the actual content of my posts...AGAIN...is either a willful attempt to skew facts, or an indication of some underlying condition you have that temporarily blinds you whenever you come across words your prejudice(s) reject. Please indicate where I have EVER made such generalizations. Hint: You can't, because I never have.
You defended that he fired the pandemic response team and said it didn't make a difference. Do you even know what a pandemic response team does and why it's necessary, you know, during a pandemic?Sorry, gillianren, but YOU started this ball rolling with reply #770, where your entire comment was simply -
No. I clearly stated my purpose in my first post. I have tried to adhere to it, and if anything have acquiesced to some aspects of other posters' comments. You, and others, can't argue your way around the similarities that some of your claims have with CTs' flawed lines of reasoning. Instead, you demand other, irrelevant to my original post, actions/words from me that prop up your more reasonable conclusions. Why I have to keep explaining this SIMPLE concept is very much akin to trying to explain basic physics to a CT. You really need to take a step back, look at my complaint in conjunction with similar complaints YOU have made regarding CT posts/tactics, and if you CAN'T identify the parallels, you are essentially just as close-minded as they are.Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions. That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law. This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.
Yeah, there are good people on both sides ::)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tt9wecso8e5lhc4/Giorgio-DefendsTrump.png?raw=1)
Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.
"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"
NOTE: Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.
My problem with you is that you seem to only be interested in pointing out flawed conclusions on one side, those that show Trump in a bad light.
The only "galloping in their own closed loop" happening here is by you. I seems you are so biased towards Trump, you are unable to see how that bias looks when observed from the outside. You can only come out in support of him (and against his opponents) so many times before it becomes suspicious.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
― Walt Kelly
Most of us here are experienced enough to eventually recognise the Hoax believers who attempt the subterfuge of starting off here posting that they believe the moan landings actually happened and that they have a open mind as to whether there was any fakery involved but gradually show their true colours; those colours indicating that they were a card-carrying moon hoax believer all along.And you SHOULD be experienced enough to think critically, yet YOU have failed time and again in your responses to me concerning this topic.
What you say as to your bias or opinions in your opening posts carries zero weight with me...Rejecting MY firsthand testimony, but holding that of others as factual proof is quite hypocritical.
"what you follow up with is what counts"Yet, you have never really been able to comprehend that the substance of my follow ups have been instep with my declared intention.
I was prepared to give you at least some benefit of the doubt until the point where you defended the Orange Turd against allegations that he tried to pressure Ukraine/Zelenskiy to announce investigations into Joe & Hunter Biden, by withholding Congressionally approved military aid. You said, and I quoteHah. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aide...
"There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion"
That tells me that you have drunk the Trump/GOP Kool-Ade. The evidence that he did what he was accused of was utterly overwhelming. Fact witness after fact witness in the House testified to what Trump did... even people who were actually listening in on the very phone call, such as Lt Col Alex Vindman
"I was concerned by the call, what I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg," Vindman said.
"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine US national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region."
This is NOT conjecture
This is NOT opinion
This is direct, first hand eye-witness testimony (exactly the kind of evidence you incorrectly claim did not exist) from a very reliable, very experienced and highly decorated military veteran, and yet you dismiss it!!
Not only that... Trump himself admitted what he did, and claimed there was nothing wrong with it.I don't think so. Do you have a source other than the Geraldo podcast a few weeks back where he answered that he sent Guiliani to the Ukraine? If so, you need to try better. If not, provide a source, please.
The fact that he released the aid only when he got caught shows the consciousness of a guilty mind.Conjecture.
At this point, I reached the only viable conclusion; that you are a Trump sycophant trying hard to pretend not to be.Only viable to a prejudiced mind. Your cognitive bias is the only viable reason for your conclusion.
Most of us here are experienced enough to eventually recognise the Hoax believers who attempt the subterfuge of starting off here posting that they believe the moan landings actually happened and that they have a open mind as to whether there was any fakery involved but gradually show their true colours; those colours indicating that they were a card-carrying moon hoax believer all along.And you SHOULD be experienced enough to think critically, yet YOU have failed time and again in your responses to me concerning this topic.What you say as to your bias or opinions in your opening posts carries zero weight with me...Rejecting MY firsthand testimony, but holding that of others as factual proof is quite hypocritical."what you follow up with is what counts"Yet, you have never really been able to comprehend that the substance of my follow ups have been instep with my declared intention.I was prepared to give you at least some benefit of the doubt until the point where you defended the Orange Turd against allegations that he tried to pressure Ukraine/Zelenskiy to announce investigations into Joe & Hunter Biden, by withholding Congressionally approved military aid. You said, and I quoteHah. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aide...
"There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion"
That tells me that you have drunk the Trump/GOP Kool-Ade. The evidence that he did what he was accused of was utterly overwhelming. Fact witness after fact witness in the House testified to what Trump did... even people who were actually listening in on the very phone call, such as Lt Col Alex Vindman
"I was concerned by the call, what I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg," Vindman said.
"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine US national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region."
This is NOT conjecture
This is NOT opinion
This is direct, first hand eye-witness testimony (exactly the kind of evidence you incorrectly claim did not exist) from a very reliable, very experienced and highly decorated military veteran, and yet you dismiss it!!
Your experience here on this board should have included the real FACT that eyewitness testimony is proven to be some of the least reliable and problematic evidence used, regardless of the witness' "qualifications". Do you want links to verify this scientific fact?Not only that... Trump himself admitted what he did, and claimed there was nothing wrong with it.I don't think so. Do you have a source other than the Geraldo podcast a few weeks back where he answered that he sent Guiliani to the Ukraine? If so, you need to try better. If not, provide a source, please.
Hint: He sent him there in late 2019. Guiliani has been on trump's legal team since 2018. He had not traveled to the Ukraine from that time until late 2019, as mentioned.The fact that he released the aid only when he got caught shows the consciousness of a guilty mind.Conjecture.At this point, I reached the only viable conclusion; that you are a Trump sycophant trying hard to pretend not to be.Only viable to a prejudiced mind. Your cognitive bias is the only viable reason for your conclusion.
And to put another nail in your attempt to claim Vindman's testimony is more than opinion (beyond the contradictions between his and others' testimonies)...in his own words:
From -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/impeachment-alexcander-vindmans-ukraine-call-testimony-takeaways/2530124001/ (my bold)
Vindman testified, "The conversation unfolded with Sondland proceeding to kind of, you know, review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting, and he talked about the investigation into the Bidens, and, frankly, I can’t 100 percent recall because I didn’t take notes of it, but Burisma, that it seemed — I mean, there was no ambiguity, I guess, in my mind. He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma"
My only reply to any of the rubbish you just posted is that it is a pity you chose to selectively quote just one part of the link you posted and not the rest of it... and reading the WHOLE, its easy to see why... it is so much more interesting.An odd thing to say. You offer no explanation as to the specifics of your claim, yet expect me to sort through a library of information and guess as to what exact part(s) you are referring (you know, how CTs say, "But watch the entire 3 hour video!"). This, BY ITSELF, is proof of my OP.
At this point, I am done with you. Its is clear to me, and I think pretty much most of the other participants in this thread, that you are a card-carrying Trump sycophant trying to pretend you are neutral. Your posting record in this thread emphatically supports that conclusion.As the author of those posts, I emphatically disagree, but I can only lead a horse.
If this forum had an ignore feature, you would be on it because frankly, you bring nothing worth discussing to the table... that does not mean I can't ignore you anyway.So true. And it should present absolutely no challenge to you, as YOUR track record on this topic has shown how adept you are at ignoring the salient points I have made.
So true. And it should present absolutely no challenge to you, as YOUR track record on this topic has shown how adept you are at ignoring the salient points I have made.
I'm still not sure what "salient points" you have made.Nothing new there.
"And accusing people of ignoring your points is rich considering you won't even talk about all of the other accusations of racism against Trump besides that one apartment rental matter that you have declared "case closed" without actually proving anything"That quote, once again proves my OP. Rather than discuss the specific validity of a claim, you have self-confirmed it BECAUSE of "all of the other" stuff - not due to that claim's actual merits. As per your revisiting the apartment rental case, that episode just shows again how you use "all of the other" stuff to legitimize your conclusion while ignoring "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties". You know, the stuff required by science and law to make a solid judgement.
I agree with smartcooky... you're not with our time. You're so blinded by loyalty to Trump that you can't see the overwhelming evidence that he is corrupt.And seeing as how neither of you are me, and both have repeatedly failed to glean the actual message, you are both wrong.
I'm still not sure what "salient points" you have made.Nothing new there.
Rather than discuss the specific validity of a claim, you have self-confirmed it BECAUSE of "all of the other" stuff - not due to that claim's actual merits. As per your revisiting the apartment rental case, that episode just shows again how you use "all of the other" stuff to legitimize your conclusion while ignoring "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties". You know, the stuff required by science and law to make a solid judgement.
To revisit in what may be a productive manner, let's go back to my Jeff Dahmer, example, and make it even more specific. If Dahmer's next door neighbor was deemed to be a missing person during the time that Dahmer lived there, and with no other evidence aside from Dahmer's other proven crimes, can you rightfully conclude Dahmer was involved with that neighbor's disappearance?
To my friends here:I'll be back later to reply to LO (thank you for that, sir), but I was just doing a quick check. In doing so, I must say.. you gotta love the media. From your link:
I know this will not be to your liking but I have to say it - and apologise in advance...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-10/us-republicans-self-quarantine-coronavirus-contact-donald-trump/12041566
So... why can't the US President do the same? Why, when he has been placed at risk, isn't he getting tested and limiting the spread?
To my friends here:I'll be back later to reply to LO (thank you for that, sir), but I was just doing a quick check. In doing so, I must say.. you gotta love the media. From your link:
I know this will not be to your liking but I have to say it - and apologise in advance...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-10/us-republicans-self-quarantine-coronavirus-contact-donald-trump/12041566
"The hardest-hit place in the United States has been a nursing home in the suburb of Kirkland in the Washington state capital of Seattle"
The legislature in Olympia must be ticked that they have to move. *sarcasm*
As an Olympian...
So... why can't the US President do the same? Why, when he has been placed at risk, isn't he getting tested and limiting the spread?
<shrugs shoulders> Because he's bloviating moron??
This is worth a read and summarises the corner that he's painted himself into. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51803890
You make "arguments" that you think are groundbreakingNever claimed that. Pointing out humans can be unaware of some of the things they do, when they should know better, being an idiom, is ground that has been thoroughly tilled.
As far as I can tell, our only "crime" is having an opinion about Trump that you don't likeNo crime there, obviously, but when opinion is expressed as fact, I find fault. If I have misinterpreted such sentiments, then that is on me, but the arguments presented to me, so far, have not indicated this to be the case.
As this is the guilt by association fallacy, you are claiming logical fallacies are evidence. There may be other evidence that supports your position, but this bit has already been declared (per my previous reference) to not be evidence. Yet you fight tooth and nail to champion this bit. Would you allow a CT to use a logical fallacy as evidence?
I have discussed the validity of your claim about the apartment rental issue. Trump, among others, was sued for discrimination. That is undeniable. It isn't proof by itself that he is racist... but it's evidence (in conjunction with other accusations over the decades) that he might be.
You keep putting "all of the other other stuff" into quotes as if all of the other evidence that Trump is racist and corrupt doesn't exist or is irrelevant.Because, when you have a CT backed into a corner on a specific point, they often use the "but there's all this other stuff" line in an attempt to change the subject, so they don't have to acknowledge their failure with the current point. Regardless of anything else being true or not, the specific point should reasonably be able to stand on its own.
I would deem it to be worthy of investigation. If the neighbour was never found, Dahmer denied any involvement, and there were no other leads I would leave it as an unsolved case, but Dahmer would still be a prime suspect.Precisely.
Using your "logic", we would not be allowed to investigate Dahmer in relation to that neighbour's disappearance unless we actually witnessed him murdering them. Thinking there might be a connection to the neighbour's disappearance and the known murderer next door is just conjecture on our part. So unfair!Here is where you get it wrong. Using my "logic", with the situation as presented, you cannot use his neighbor's disappearance to conclude ANYTHING in relation to Dahmer. It is a completely separate event. You can look into it, just as they looked into the rental dispute, but when the investigators conclude there is no evidence to confirm it, you cannot justifiably continue to insist it is viable evidence against Dahmer.
we have a man in charge right now who didn't understand why getting a flu shot wouldn't protect you from coronavirus.Now, that DOES scare me...
Without warning and with next to no consultation with foreign allies and even key members of his own administration, Mr Trump announced a travel ban...
...his statement didn't clearly state that the travel ban only applies to foreign citizens. Nor did his speech indicate what countries in Europe would be included.
"These prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval," Trump said. He was wrong. It seems Trump had inadvertently added one hugely consequential word: "only".
...he also wrongly claimed health insurance companies would "waive all co-payments for coronavirus treatments". But all they'd agreed to was testing.
And Trump claimed his administration is "making antiviral treatments available in record time," when there are as yet no approved antiviral treatments for COVID-19.
What exactly is causing the hold up with the testing in the US? Is it an actual shortage of something (test kits, or people able to do the test), or is there some kind of political road block (ie. the government is not willing to pay for the tests, or does not see the need for them)?
I have no evidence, but I would not be surprised if the WH is leaning heavily on the CDC. The last thing that Captain Bonespurs wants is lots of testing and lots of people being declared infected.
Then there's the way he mangled his address to the nation: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-13/how-will-coronavirus-impact-the-us-presidential-election/12051232QuoteWithout warning and with next to no consultation with foreign allies and even key members of his own administration, Mr Trump announced a travel ban...Quote...his statement didn't clearly state that the travel ban only applies to foreign citizens. Nor did his speech indicate what countries in Europe would be included.Quote"These prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval," Trump said. He was wrong. It seems Trump had inadvertently added one hugely consequential word: "only".Quote...he also wrongly claimed health insurance companies would "waive all co-payments for coronavirus treatments". But all they'd agreed to was testing.
And Trump claimed his administration is "making antiviral treatments available in record time," when there are as yet no approved antiviral treatments for COVID-19.
All in one speech.
We did our apocalypse shopping last weekend. Hand sanitizer was long gone, but pretty much everything else was well-stocked.
Cases have been confirmed in Austin, so everything is shutting down. We haven't been ordered to work from home yet, but I imagine that will change in next week or so.
My faire boss is having a lot of events canceled, which is really going to hurt his pocket. (LO, can I link his site? He's even got some fun space-themed pins.)
Yesterday, $1.5 trillion dollars was dumped into the stock market, which boosted it . . . for half an hour.
And Trump hasn't been tested yet despite having contact with a known patient.
An old fat man like Trump who is exposed to infected people and refusing to be tested (or has he been tested secretly?) is a recipe for the VP taking over soon.
Ranb
I am sure some will disagree, but I like this even-handed (IMHO) assessment regarding COVID-19, and the political spin put on it and previous outbreaks by both Democratic and Republican viewpoints.
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/truth-in-this-moment?r=3uwr9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3nwwvF8OcoSWvdV2QVz8-Z-qmReQQJHUBsxk2m6PKNFzbIwNA2gDrXa0M
I find it notable the media — every single network and most newspapers — used the phrase “Wuhan virus” or “Wuhan coronavirus” as this virus started spreading.
To claim that we cannot refer to the Wuhan virus by that name is to give special preference to China we have not given to African regions, Connecticut, or many other areas.
The truth is that the virus is a far bigger concern than the flu and pneumonia. But it is not some deadly pandemic that will see millions die.
International leaders including (but not limited to) China, Iran and the United States, have for weeks either withheld information, spread misinformation or consistently played down the threat of coronavirus...
Then there are leaders peddling misinformation: On Friday, as Akbar Velayati, one of the closest aides to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, went into quarantine, Khamenei said the virus could be part of a "biological attack".
Cases have been confirmed in Austin, so everything is shutting down. We haven't been ordered to work from home yet, but I imagine that will change in next week or so.
I am sure some will disagree, but I like this even-handed (IMHO) assessment regarding COVID-19, and the political spin put on it and previous outbreaks by both Democratic and Republican viewpoints.
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/truth-in-this-moment?r=3uwr9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3nwwvF8OcoSWvdV2QVz8-Z-qmReQQJHUBsxk2m6PKNFzbIwNA2gDrXa0M
I am sure some will disagree, but I like this even-handed (IMHO) assessment regarding COVID-19, and the political spin put on it and previous outbreaks by both Democratic and Republican viewpoints.
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/truth-in-this-moment?r=3uwr9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3nwwvF8OcoSWvdV2QVz8-Z-qmReQQJHUBsxk2m6PKNFzbIwNA2gDrXa0M
I am sure some will disagree, but I like this even-handed (IMHO) assessment regarding COVID-19, and the political spin put on it and previous outbreaks by both Democratic and Republican viewpoints.
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/truth-in-this-moment?r=3uwr9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3nwwvF8OcoSWvdV2QVz8-Z-qmReQQJHUBsxk2m6PKNFzbIwNA2gDrXa0M
"Even-handed"??? Are you having a laugh or just trolling at this stage? It starts with a load of Bronze Age Christianity BS. It refers to a Chinese website as a "commie site".
It's no wonder that you hold the views that you have if you think that this is "even-handed".
I'm astonished that anyone who believes themselves to be a skeptic would post such an obviously one-sided (pro-Trump anti-Obama) article full of religious claptrap and conservative political bollocks, and then dare to call it "even handed".With the exception of the pro-Trump anti-Obama portion, all posted criticisms of that article and my ignorance on the subject are justified, so far. A few correct words do not make up for all the incorrect ones. I do thank the responding posters for any and all information and corrections. My exception is because those portions of the link, as well as interpretations of it, are predicated on opinion, rather than demonstrable fact.
I had never heard of the dude mainly because I avoid the head-banging end of the Internet as much as possible.
Why would you expect anything better from an ultra-conservative evangelical blogger
I couldn't agree more. In my opinion, using such an extreme, obnoxious source tells me that not only is the quoter familiar with that type of cesspit of opinion, but also has normalised it to such a level that he feels that is even-handed. It couldn't be further from being even-handed if Alex Jones had spouted it.
I'm astonished that anyone who believes themselves to be a skeptic would post such an obviously one-sided (pro-Trump anti-Obama) article full of religious claptrap and conservative political bollocks, and then dare to call it "even handed".
...As to the claim that calling it Wuhan virus is valid because it maintains a long-standing convention, when the most recent example of that naming system they can come up with is over 40 years old it is just possible that the convention has been changed, as indeed it has. This is COVID-19, as officially designated. Even calling it just 'coronavirus' has issues since it is one of many coronaviruses. I've seen people claim it's all a conspiracy because they've seen coronavirus mentioned on old medications, as if they think this is the first coronavirus ever...
stay classy, Donald. Stay classy.....
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-confirms-that-donald-trump-tried-to-buy-firm-working-on-coronavirus-vaccine/
New York (CNN Business)US stocks opened sharply lower on Monday as investors grew concerned that the emergency policy measures by global central banks over the weekend meant the economy is in much worse shape than previously believed.
Instead of soothing the markets, another emergency interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve had the opposite effect.
The S&P 500 opened down 8.1%. The index hit a circuit breaker after falling more than 7%. Trading is now halted for 15 minutes.
The Dow opened 9.7%, or 2,250 points, lower and the Nasdaq Composite fell 6.1%.
And as soon as the market stands up again, bloodied and broken after falling off a 300 foot cliff, the sonafabitch will be right there to take credit in all caps. Because that's just what he is.
And Gods forbid the money they pump into the market could instead go to making sure low-income people can actually stay home without worrying about being starving and homeless--they're even planning to still go ahead with SNAP cuts.
And in that picture, the people around the man (don't know him, I assume he's something like the Governor of Florida?)...
Ah. I wouldn't have known that, I've not seen the movie (and it's not the sort that would appeal to me).
Ah. I wouldn't have known that, I've not seen the movie (and it's not the sort that would appeal to me).
The shark looks pretty fake.
Yeah, Marty McFly agrees...True, in words, but then why was he cowering and screaming in terror? Just sayin'...
Ah. I wouldn't have known that, I've not seen the movie (and it's not the sort that would appeal to me).
The shark looks pretty fake.
How long before Trump boasts that they have more COVID-19 cases than anywhere else in the world?How long before Pelosi is more reviled than Trump?
I don't get all the news over here. What is she doing?How long before Trump boasts that they have more COVID-19 cases than anywhere else in the world?How long before Pelosi is more reviled than Trump?
Apart from all the wasted time and money investigating Trump for Russian election collusion, and trying to impeach him on other grounds (when the whole WORLD knew it was useless), she held up the COVID-19 aid bill for Americans to force non-essential green deal and socialist riders onto it. Recently, she accused Trump of killing Americans with his COVID-19 policies, despite the fact his early travel bans undoubtedly spared hundreds, if not thousands of lives, yet were criticized at the time by the Democrats.I don't get all the news over here. What is she doing?How long before Trump boasts that they have more COVID-19 cases than anywhere else in the world?How long before Pelosi is more reviled than Trump?
Also, you do know that the Republican version of the bill basically would've been writing a blank check to Trump's hotels, right?An absurd projection of the original contents.
Apart from all the wasted time and money investigating Trump for Russian election collusion,I don't get all the news over here. What is she doing?How long before Trump boasts that they have more COVID-19 cases than anywhere else in the world?How long before Pelosi is more reviled than Trump?
and trying to impeach him on other grounds (when the whole WORLD knew it was useless),
she held up the COVID-19 aid bill for Americans to force non-essential green deal and socialist riders onto it.
Recently, she accused Trump of killing Americans with his COVID-19 policies, despite the fact his early travel bans undoubtedly spared hundreds, if not thousands of lives, yet were criticized at the time by the Democrats.
I'm accustomed to being more direct on other forums.I personally have no problem with that.
Yes, Nancy and the rest of the House Democrats pushed for the investigation, which was warranted based on the intel gathered to that point.Your opinion, as well as that of many others, but ultimately one that was unfounded regarding its stated purpose. NONE of your highly touted convictions had any direct links to Trump/Russian collusion. But it sure seems to make you feel good to bring such irrelevance up, anyway.
Hell, "Russia, if you're listening" was a GIANT RED FLAG that should have caused the GOP to drop Trump like a lump of hot plutonium all by itself (and would have, not that long ago).They are not so easily fooled,as others.
Impeachment isn't just about removing someone from office, although Trump should have been before things got this farAgree with former, not latter. This impeachment was all political. A wish for earlier impeachment is just your prejudicial wish.
Trump withheld critical military aid from an ally against a shared geopolitical adversary in exchange for a political favor.Yawn...previously discussed, and again, comes down to conjecture. No matter how many times you whine otherwise, it does NOT change that fact.
There's a term known as "normalization of deviance" - the gradual acceptance of practices that were previously unacceptable.True. BOTH sides do it. YOU, too, by defending Pelosci's actions, among other things.
Which means you better keep your goddamned mouth shut when a Democrat starts doing it, because if you think it's acceptable for Trump, then it's just as acceptable for Biden.
I mean, ask yourself honestly, would you have objected if Obama had used his power to pressure, say, the Saudis into announcing an investigation into Don Jr. or Eric for the purpose of embarrassing or discrediting their father? For me, the answer is yes.Yes, for those stated reasons. To speculate Trump was trying doing to do the same thing for the same stated reasons is only that.
The primary objections to the relief bill as it was written were that it gave Mnuchin sole discretion to disburse $500 bn (yes, Virginia, half a trillion dollars) with no oversight, no guarantees workers would be retained, no assurance that it wouldn't personally enrich the Trumps, etc.Only partially true. I suggest you revisit that statement after you do a little better research. It still does not justify Pelosi's unrelated demands.
We have community spread in all 50 states...I am familiar with the statistics and various projections.
Had Trump listened to health experts and his own intelligence community...If done perfectly, you could be right, but this is hindsight looking at a time when much of what we now know either wasn't proven, or had not yet come to light.
we're going to celebrate if we manage to keep the death toll to "only" 200,000 or so (best case scenario at this point), and we'll be in this mode for months.A very pessimistic outlook, and not shared by many leading experts. Dr. Fauci's current "worst case" scenario is 100,000. Still, that does not take away from the tragedy of this disease.
"No, I don't accept any responsibility".Yep. A sad indication of his dismal leadership skills. Where is Harry S. Truman when you need him?
I want everyone to know I'm doing my absolute best to behave.
200,000 deaths is a failure. An abject, wholly unacceptable, wholly avoidable failure. And that failure will lie with the man who said, and I fucking quote, "No, I don't accept any responsibility".
Apart from all the wasted time and money investigating Trump for Russian election collusion,
and trying to impeach him on other grounds (when the whole WORLD knew it was useless)
Recently, she accused Trump of killing Americans with his COVID-19 policies, despite the fact his early travel bans undoubtedly spared hundreds, if not thousands of lives, yet were criticized at the time by the Democrats.
Here is an example, albeit from a conservative source...
Now, I know this topic is for Trump-bashing posts, but the absurdity of the lengths to which some people go, while abandoning their critical thinking abilities (if any) yet remaining silent on their own political representatives' failings, can be a real head-shaker.
President Donald Trump on Sunday suggested that nurses and doctors in New York, the area in the U.S. hardest-hit thus far by the coronavirus outbreak, are stealing and selling facemasks and other protective gear meant to keep them safe as they handle an unprecedented influx of patients sick with the disease spreading across the country.
"Where are the masks going, are they going out the backdoor?" Trump said, implying that healthcare workers were smuggling personal proteective equipment (PPE) out of hospitals for resale on the black market.
"There's something going on. I don't think it's hoarding. I think it's maybe worse than hoarding," the president added, telling the assembled reporters to look into it.
Really? He is mentally unstable, surely?
President Donald Trump on Sunday suggested that nurses and doctors in New York, the area in the U.S. hardest-hit thus far by the coronavirus outbreak, are stealing and selling facemasks and other protective gear meant to keep them safe as they handle an unprecedented influx of patients sick with the disease spreading across the country.
"Where are the masks going, are they going out the backdoor?" Trump said, implying that healthcare workers were smuggling personal proteective equipment (PPE) out of hospitals for resale on the black market.
"There's something going on. I don't think it's hoarding. I think it's maybe worse than hoarding," the president added, telling the assembled reporters to look into it.
Really? He is mentally unstable, surely?
I watched a video the other day of someone going around New York to show how deserted the streets and public spaces have become. And at one point he shows some guy selling face masks on a street corner for $1. Now, I am in no way saying that doctors or nurses provided the masks to that guy (that would be ridiculous), but it is suspicious that he had so many. Did they fall off the back of a truck?
Go to 2:14
He literally does not understand the concept of compromise and sharing. To him, there are winners and there are losers, and if you're going to win, someone else has to lose.
Could it get worse?The savings by cutting the funding are pretty insignificant compared to the US deficit and the current spending on dealing with the crisis. I think his only motivation is to find someone to blame, and hope he can convince enough people to get re-elected.
Yes, here you go
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/world-reacts-trump-withdrawing-funding-200415061612025.html
How does cutting the funds help in curbing the disease? How does punishment instead of dialogue and correction make the situation any good? Could it be that the economy is loosing and he wants to put the money "inside America" solely and he is taking advantage of the situation?
The savings by cutting the funding are pretty insignificant compared to the US deficit and the current spending on dealing with the crisis.
I think his only motivation is to find someone to blame, and hope he can convince enough people to get re-elected.
His daily briefings are now basically just campaign rallies, playing to his audience.
I continue to be both baffled and terrified that there is actually an audience for his performances at these briefings.
I continue to be both baffled and terrified that there is actually an audience for his performances at these briefings.
Could it get worse?
Yes, here you go
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/world-reacts-trump-withdrawing-funding-200415061612025.html
How does cutting the funds help in curbing the disease? How does punishment instead of dialogue and correction make the situation any good? Could it be that the economy is loosing and he wants to put the money "inside America" solely and he is taking advantage of the situation?
What it shows is something that I think a lot of Americans have forgotten - that it's possible to have a nuanced view on an issue: WHO isn't all good or all bad, and for all that Trump is an erratic narcissist he has valid criticisms of WHO.
Stepping back, the larger American perspective on governance seems to be that everything is, and will always be, just fine. The economy will self-regulate. Nothing bad will happen. And this gives rise to wholly unqualified governors, at all levels of the federal system. Americans have become accustomed to the idea that politics and government are just games to be played, that have no meaningful effect on outcomes. The entire American system seems to be thought of as "too big to fail," therefore, somehow, it won't, no matter what actions are taken. I don't like where that's headed.
“The curve is flattening, we can start lifting some restrictions now!” = “My parachute has slowed my rate of descent, I can take it off now!”
Doctor Oz apparently believes we can open the schools with no more danger than a 2-3% mortality rate!And the supposedly "pro-life" Republicans will be okay with that because the economy (ie. making rich people richer) must come first.
Doctor Oz apparently believes we can open the schools with no more danger than a 2-3% mortality rate!And the supposedly "pro-life" Republicans will be okay with that because the economy (ie. making rich people richer) must come first.
In an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson on March 23, 2020, {Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan} Patrick stated that he was willing to risk his life from the coronavirus pandemic if it would avoid an economic shutdown, which he stated would negatively impact subsequent generations. Patrick also stated that he thought many grandparents agreed with him on this.
And the supposedly "pro-life" Republicans will be okay with that because the economy (ie. making rich people richer) must come first.
And the supposedly "pro-life" Republicans will be okay with that because the economy (ie. making rich people richer) must come first.
Our state legislature is in special session, virtually, to consider exactly this sort of question. As you might guess, we have a GOP supermajority. One of our local NPR reporters is also in the virtual meeting room. She live-tweeted a couple hours ago that there is a proposal floated to officially shift the state's primary criterion for lifting quarantine restrictions from health to economy.
I hope voters remember that when round two of the virus begins.
Doctor Oz apparently believes we can open the schools with no more danger than a 2-3% mortality rate!
Doctor Oz apparently believes we can open the schools with no more danger than a 2-3% mortality rate!
That's 1 to 2 dead children/teachers per classroom.
In a grade school of 500 students, that's 10 to 15 dead children/teachers.
In a university like Georgetown that's 90 to 140 dead students/lecturers.
And the Doctor thinks this is OK?
(https://i.imgur.com/0qn49cF.jpg)Yep.
The man is insane..
Is the President's reference to the 2nd Amendment really what I think it is? It's being interpreted as suggesting armed rebellion, but has Trump said anything about what he might have meant instead?
America is going to pay a heavy heavy price for Trump's failure to act against coronavirus and COVID-19.
Is the President's reference to the 2nd Amendment really what I think it is? It's being interpreted as suggesting armed rebellion, but has Trump said anything about what he might have meant instead?Trump goes back and forth like a clock pendulum on gun rights. The Trump administration has required the seizure or destruction (or perhaps hiding) of more privately owned firearms than any other administration since FDR.
Is it schadenfreude to savor the irony that some of those same people will die from their own stupidity?I hope it is not.
I'm not sure if he's actively calling for civil war in the US, or if he's so terminally unaware that he's only focused on the November re-election. Either which way, what he is doing is incredibly dangerous given the powder-box mentalities of a lot of the US.
Putin's investment in Trump just keeps on returning paying dividends, doesn't it?
He is so often incoherent that I have given up trying to listen to him live and usually only read transcripts of what he says.I hope they make more sense than trying to listen to him. I general avoid hearing him speak (being in the UK makes it easier) but he comes across as illiterate, inarticulate, and with the mental development of an 8-year-old.
...he comes across as illiterate, inarticulate, and with the mental development of an 8-year-old.
It baffles me that he still has the level of support that he does.
The classic example I remember is how Russian hackers used Facebook to organise competing protests at the same time and place in a city in the USA. And as an article pointed out a year or so ago, a room full of government hackers is cheaper than a single high-tech military aircraft.
Absolutely - the US is going to have to face second wave deaths that will make the first wave look like the odd few sick people.
...encouraging people to break quarantine. On the other hand, there seems to be a significant number of people who actually believe him or hoax theories that have been floated.
Is it schadenfreude to savor the irony that some of those same people will die from their own stupidity?
That's what baffles me. Donald Trump's incompetence and instability have been on display long before Day One. It should hardly surprise us anymore. But not every Republican is as bat-crap crazy or as nefarious as Trump. I keep asking myself at what point the rest of the party will say "Enough is enough." I'm more than surprised to discover that this point hasn't yet been reached. If not now, then at what point? Peter B's post is spot-on. America -- specifically, elected American officials, the wealthy, and the powerful -- seem to believe that any and all outrageous behavior on their part is sustainable because the institutions of the nation will somehow kick in and prevent any actual disaster, or at least insulate them from its effect. They seem to consider it an infinitely exploitable system. These institutions have an effect only insofar as the people they affect respect and uphold them. Instead, people today are behaving as if there is some ineffable something about America that will magically prevent it from becoming no different than a banana republic and having all the problems that entails.
He can go his merry way after the Presidency and totter off into antiquity, yelling at clouds and lawn boys, until he succumbs to old age (or one too many taco bowls).
descends so far into dementia that he can't function,How will we know?
My firstborn's dad died yesterday morning of, among other things, dementia. Believe me, you reach a point. You can't string together a reasonable conspiracy theory after a certain point, for one.
I'm just thinking about Reagan--after a while, it went beyond "I do not recall."
...Reagan at least had the excuse of having been shot. No matter how healthy you are, that's a hell of a thing to recover from, and I have no doubt that contributed to the cognitive decline we saw later on.
Have you heard about IBM's latest typewriter? It's called the Presidential Selectric and has extra backspace keys, no colon and no memory.
“Inject disinfectant?” Really? The man is totally insane, the US is heading for an unprecedented catastrophe with this moron in charge.Demonstrating yet again that he has little to no education, especially in scientific areas. He also shows classic Dunning-Kruger tendencies, repeatedly claiming that "nobody knows <subject> better than me", despite obviously knowing next to nothing about it.
Demonstrating yet again that he has little to no education, especially in scientific areas. He also shows classic Dunning-Kruger tendencies, repeatedly claiming that "nobody knows <subject> better than me", despite obviously knowing next to nothing about it.
“Inject disinfectant?” Really? The man is totally insane, the US is heading for an unprecedented catastrophe with this moron in charge.
Demonstrating yet again that he has little to no education, especially in scientific areas.
My biggest worry is that, as with his repeated pushing of chloroquine-related "cures", people will try these ideas and either become seriously ill, or even die.
When he says "Nobody knows..." this is a tell. What he is really saying is "I just found out...."
I think it's beyond Dunning-Kruger. I think it's pure narcissism. He genuinely believes he's the best at everything, and the last four years have been example after example of how that isn't true. Even Dunning-Kruger isn't that strong.
His brain is turning into Swiss cheese as we watch, which is a good bit more unsettling and dangerous than plain old D-K.
But again, the problem isn't Trump, it's all the people who enable and support him, both in politics and the media.
Although he'll almost certainly deny ever saying this in a week's time...
“Inject disinfectant?” Really? The man is totally insane, the US is heading for an unprecedented catastrophe with this moron in charge.
Back in March, when the President touted it as a miracle cure, the owner of a local chain of compounding pharmacies stockpiled millions of dollars worth of hydroxychloroquine. Then the bubble burst when the French study was discredited. Acting quickly, our state government did two things. First it passed a new law absolving medical practitioners of liability for the consequences of using non-FDA-approved medicines during medical emergencies. Then it arranged to purchase the pharmacy's entire stock of the drug using public funds, a deal ultimately worth $8 million. That way, our local Trump-trusting businessman isn't out the cost of a useless stockpile.It looks like they've withdrawn from that deal, at least according to current headlines, but they've already spent $800,000! It doesn't look like a valid use of tax-payers' money, so there may be further enquiries into it.
One of the criticisms against Barack Obama was that his academic manner of address put some people off. And in politics, this is a problem. You can't really represent people or inspire them if you can't speak to them. I would look to Harry S Truman as an example of someone who can be both plain-spoken and an effective leader.Having watched or listened to briefings and press events by leaders from all over the world, three of them stand out, at least to me, as being able to get their message across clearly and concisely. Angela Merkel in Germany, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, and dare I say it, our own Nicola Sturgeon here in Scotland (and I say that as not a Scottish Nationalist!). Interestingly, all three are women, so it makes me wonder how Hillary Clinton would have handled this situation. (And again, I wasn't a fan of her running as President, but things might be very different if...)
He used the same excuse when called on his comments about having the Russians spy on Hillary Clinton. Nobody really bought it then, either.
If you listen to the whole briefing, the President did walk back his claim -- sort of. When Sec. Bryan was asked to clarify whether topical disinfectants could be used in the way the President suggested, the President interrupted Bryan's answer to say he wasn't really talking about injections, but about a "cleaning, sterilization of an area." He added, "Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work." If you're going to interrupt the answer, that's the right time to say, "I was just kidding, folks." Instead he let Bryan answer seriously, and gave every indication he was still being serious. If you go back to the time he first made the suggestion, he was looking to his science experts. One could easily interpret that as a nonverbal request to back him up.
The initial spin from the White House is consistent with this interpretation. They did not claim the President had been joking. They claimed instead he had been misinterpreted by the media. The "misinterpretation" angle is consistent with the walk-back. It is less consistent with the President's new claim. The claim that it was a joke came only after the whole world laughed at Trump's apparent ignorance, and after the walk-back failed to satisfy commentators that he wasn't still talking about the medical use of topical disinfectant.
It looks like they've withdrawn from that deal, at least according to current headlines, but they've already spent $800,000!
Certainly, governments all over the world are helping businesses through difficult times, but I would have thought bailing out someone who was effectively looking to profit from the crisis might have been seen as a step too far.
Having watched or listened to briefings and press events by leaders from all over the world, three of them stand out, at least to me, as being able to get their message across clearly and concisely. Angela Merkel in Germany, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, and dare I say it, our own Nicola Sturgeon here in Scotland (and I say that as not a Scottish Nationalist!).
He can go his merry way after the Presidency and totter off into antiquity, yelling at clouds and lawn boys, until he succumbs to old age (or one too many taco bowls).
I suspect that after Trump leaves office he'll become the next Rush Limbaugh and continue to spew lies and fan the flames of division. He will push conspiracy theories about Joe Biden etc. in order to give the Republicans a chance of regaining power. So unless he goes to prison or descends so far into dementia that he can't function, he will still be dangerous.
But yes, I agree that his enablers need to face some serious consequences. The United States also needs to shore up it's checks & balances so something like this can't happen again. One place to start is to make it clear that no one, not even the President, is above the law. That means they can't stonewall an impeachment investigation, and they should have no power over the investigators. And any Attorney General that aids the President in obstructing an impeachment investigation should be immediately removed from office.
This explanation is why I don't accept the idea that there's any mental deterioration in Trump - he's all there as far as I can see. That is, he's aware enough of how people respond to what he's said to shift his position, to blithely try another explanation until the ridicule dies down.
On a related matter, I remember an old saying that the best way to make a small fortune in business is to start with a large fortune.
Trump seems to be an exemplar of that, in that he seems to be constantly losing money as his businesses go bankrupt and then get re-enabled by some new finance deal or other which involves Trump losing a portion of his ownership of those businesses. And yet no matter how often these businesses go under he always seems to be out there sticking his finger into some new deal or business venture - an airline, a 'university', a talent quest, all sorts of endorsements.
He also seems to have been involved in a lot of litigation, although I don't know how he compares to other businesspeople. I'd be curious to know who the people are who he's litigated against...
...more like a bully full of bluster who's managed to get his own way for decades, and in the process convinced a lot of people that he's a lot more powerful and clever than he really is.
But, because he's managed to get his own way for so long, he's come to believe his own propaganda is the reality.
...and with nothing internal and virtually no one external to tell him, 'No don't do that.'
Another image which came to mind was the Norse gods in Terry Jones's 1989 movie "Erik the Viking", who turn out to be petulant children - lots of power, no restraint.
Trump will claim there were electoral irregularities and that he was robbed, and refuse to accept the result.
Then watch to see how many of his supporters come out and repeat that line, brandishing their rifles.
Even worse if he wins a second term and decides at the end of it that he wouldn't mind a third.
The other thing that makes me nervous is from an article I linked a couple of weeks ago - a hypothetical in which Trump convinces a bunch of states with Republican governors to change their voting laws so the state governments allocate the Electoral College votes...
Which is both true from his perspective--he's never really had to change--and a serious problem for the rest of us.
It's interesting to me that Trump comes, at least ostensibly, out of a party that's made a great deal of hay in recent decades about the "flip-flopping" of its opposition, because the Democratic Party has shown an ability to change with the times that the Republicans either can't or don't want to.
[The President's supports] don't call him on it and will still talk to you about his firm leadership and unchanging positions.
But he doesn't care about additional evidence.
I don't think he cares about evidence at all. He brazenly makes up "facts" all the time. I think he goes almost entirely from his gut on everything. I don't think he considers actual facts even one-sidedly.
Yes, a lot of us noticed Donald Trump's behavior a long time ago. But it was not necessary to say anything because I didn't move in any sphere of influence he affected. What he did on the East Coast, thousands of miles away, hardly concerned me. I don't work in his industry, and I don't live anywhere near him. The rest of the world must deal with the same things the New York real-estate, financial, and construction industries have known for decades. It's newly relevant, but it's not new.
What is new, however, is that other people who are like him have been emboldened and liberated by his actions. Not only do we have to deal with Donald Trump as an international travesty, we also have to deal with our own little petty local Trumps who receive new encouragement and support from his supporters.
Yes, a lot of us noticed Donald Trump's behavior a long time ago. But it was not necessary to say anything because I didn't move in any sphere of influence he affected. What he did on the East Coast, thousands of miles away, hardly concerned me. I don't work in his industry, and I don't live anywhere near him. The rest of the world must deal with the same things the New York real-estate, financial, and construction industries have known for decades. It's newly relevant, but it's not new.
This, exactly. I knew who Donald Trump was of course. But to me, being in the UK (and nowhere near Prestwick...) he was a punchline in sitcoms, a TV personality, someone who made occasional cameos in TV shows and movies, but not someone who had any real impact on my life. Now I can't go a single day without seeing his stupid smug face and hearing his incoherent ramblings, and he is having an impact because now my government has to deal with him. His actions have direct consequances for my country's economy and for the industry I work in. So now I weigh in to discussions about him. It's not an anti-Trump agenda kicked off by personal dislike of the man, it's an anti-complete-and-utter-narcissitic-f***wit-who-is-patently-unfit-to-run-any-country-and-is-possibly-going-to-screw-my-own-and-others-with-hisignorance-and-cult-of-personality-bullshit agenda, which frankly seems a reasonable one to have!QuoteWhat is new, however, is that other people who are like him have been emboldened and liberated by his actions. Not only do we have to deal with Donald Trump as an international travesty, we also have to deal with our own little petty local Trumps who receive new encouragement and support from his supporters.
And this. We saw the same thing here with the Brexit referendum. Once the 'leave' motion passed, racism and bigotry shot up here because now people felt it was OK because we were going to go back to a nationalist, Britain first course led from the top.
What is new, however, is that other people who are like him have been emboldened and liberated by his actions. Not only do we have to deal with Donald Trump as an international travesty, we also have to deal with our own little petty local Trumps who receive new encouragement and support from his supporters.
And this. We saw the same thing here with the Brexit referendum. Once the 'leave' motion passed, racism and bigotry shot up here because now people felt it was OK because we were going to go back to a nationalist, Britain first course led from the top.
I firmly believe that the best thing we could possibly do to improve politics is to make it okay to change your mind in the face of evidence. Changing your mind doesn't make you a liar or a hypocrite. At least, not necessarily. It's entirely possible to say, "Oh. I was wrong." But every time a politician does it, that's proof that they're just one of those flip-floppers, doing whatever it takes to get votes.
It is also somehow the only job in the world where having experience makes some people think you're bad at it.
At least it's an issue with pedigree. Theramenes was a politician in 5th century BC Athens who earned himself the derisive nickname Sock (the nearest understandable equivalent today) because he could go on either foot.
Then there are the people who think "I don't know" is an unacceptable response to a complex question. As if we're supposed to immediately take a stance on things before giving it a proper amount of thought or doing research first.
And Gods forbid you ask experts for their opinions.
The Trump administration abruptly cut off funding for a project studying how coronaviruses spread from bats to people after reports linked the work to a lab in Wuhan, China, at the center of conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic’s origins.
Then watch to see how many of his supporters come out and repeat that line, brandishing their rifles. I have a nervous feeling many of them will act a little more aggressively than Democratic Party supporters did in 2000.
Then watch to see how many of his supporters come out and repeat that line, brandishing their rifles. I have a nervous feeling many of them will act a little more aggressively than Democratic Party supporters did in 2000.
So a heavily armed mob stormed the Michigan state capitol building today and tried to gain access to the legislature floor. You're doing a better job than many psychics.
So what happens when one person's right to freedom comes at the expense of someone else's right to life? Or is that too subtle an argument for these patriots?
So what happens when one person's right to freedom comes at the expense of someone else's right to life? Or is that too subtle an argument for these patriots?
It's too subtle an argument for Elon Musk. He doesn't understand that people's freedoms don't include endangering the lives of others.
So what happens when one person's right to freedom comes at the expense of someone else's right to life? Or is that too subtle an argument for these patriots?
It's too subtle an argument for Elon Musk. He doesn't understand that people's freedoms don't include endangering the lives of others.
??
Sorry, context?
So what happens when one person's right to freedom comes at the expense of someone else's right to life? Or is that too subtle an argument for these patriots?
It's too subtle an argument for Elon Musk. He doesn't understand that people's freedoms don't include endangering the lives of others.
??
Sorry, context?
Oh, sorry, I sometimes forget that not everyone uses Twitter.
Elon has been pretty vocal that the concern over COVID-19 is just overblown paranoia, and just recently expressed his belief that requiring people social distance is "de facto house arrest" and that it is fascism. He has also been retweeting conspiracy theories about how hospitals are supposedly inflating the number of COVID-19 cases in order to receive more funding. He basically believes that people should be free to go about their business even though that will endanger others.
As opposed to many others in the aerospace industry, Elon Musk is a Silicon Valley billionaire. As a rule, such types are (1) very libertarian, and (2) completely naive when it comes to workable politics. Perhaps more importantly, he gets $600 million in stock options if Tesla Motors maintains a $100 billion market cap this period, which he stands to miss if his workers don't get back to work soon. He may be a Silicon Valley billionaire, but he's still acting like he's thinking like a billionaire.
Or is that too subtle an argument for these patriots?
The Constitution is what's trying to be working law. And a lot of people point to the constitutional phrases to the effect, "...shall not be abridged," and try to read those as absolute inalienable rights. They aren't.
My right inherently imposes a responsibility on you, which may burden your rights.
Weird thing about money, the more people have the more they want. I'm not a whizz with finances, and I know business is complex and large sums can come and go very quickly, but why are so many billionaires always up in arms about loss of revenue and demanding government action to save them and their businesses? Richard Branson has been avoiding UK tax for years and is worth about £4.5 billion, but within a week of lockdown was demanding UK goverment (read: taxpayer) bailouts for his airline.
The number I always have in my head when I see billionaires going on about money, taxation etc. is 99.9%. Why that number? Because for most people the loss of 99.9% of their net worth is a disaster. I am OK financially but if I lost 99.9% of my net worth I would be homeless, carless and would only be able to buy food for a short time before I was reduced to begging, never mind afford transport to attend job interviews to get myself back on track. On the other hand, a billionaire who loses 99.9% of his net worth is still a millionaire! And yet, once they get to that top strata, they fly into paroxysms of panic at the possibility of dropping down to still significantly better off that the vast majority of people in the entire world. It would be almost impossible for a billionaire to be reduced to abject poverty, but you'd think to listen to some of them they are constantly walking the line between life and death.
There's no way to take something as short as the US Constitution and take it as the be all and end all of US law. It's surely supposed to be the underlying basis, not the final word.
And do these morons really think that the people who wrote it all out honestly thought that there were no circumstances whatsoever under which exercising that right might be a bad idea, such as during a global pandemic of a disease that can be transmitted easily from person to person?
...because it only impedes others' civic liberties in their opinion.
I don't wish this illness on anyone, but I find myself fervently wishing that Trump does not get it, because if he gets it and recovers can you imagine what his deuded sense of self-importance would make of that?!
if he gets it and recovers can you imagine what his deuded sense of self-importance would make of that?!
I had to read the article twice before understanding that it's not so much that Donald Trump wants a civil war as it is that he doesn't care if one happens so long as he gets what he wants. He's a narcissist above all. He will say or do whatever seems expedient in the moment to keep adulation focused on him and blame for any objectively adverse consequences placed squarely on someone else. He calls for the "liberation" of states whose governors didn't defer to him not because he wants the rebellion that would tend to foment, but because he simply wants to punish certain individuals for their public defiance. I believe he literally does not care what the actual consequences would be to people in those states who suffer as a result. Putting yourself in the President's likely mindset, It's easy to say those people suffer because of their governors' lack of cooperation. He walks away blameless.
The author is an American -- a New Yorker, in fact. We can presume she knows the person of Donald Trump well. She points to all the traditional betrayals others have noted in the President's wake. She is right about one thing we discussed a few pages ago. While the President is clearly not an intelligent man in many ways, he has a New York brand of street smarts. He's a very shrewd salesman, and speaks in the ways that get people to do things they probably would not do otherwise. Up until now he has been able to squeak past the consequences of his many failures. I mean all the times when the facts fail to correspond to his puffery. He declares bankruptcy. He shifts blame. He changes tack. But his all-style, no-substance puffery is why the President holds campaign rallies instead of press conferences. (We've seen how badly he handles those.) All he really knows how to do is keep a crowd riled up. And as long as they're riled up in a way that strokes his ego, he simply does not care what that riled-up mob ends up doing, or how many of that mob ends up dying. He firmly believes none of it will ever be his fault, and he will never be held accountable for it -- either in fact or in his own mind.
Ms Selinger predicts that civil war is inevitable in the United States. I assume she means literally, but she doesn't say. Clearly we're headed for a crisis of some form. But in fairness, the U.S. has been headed in this direction for a long time. Donald Trump as President of the U.S. is a symptom of tose forces, I believe, not the cause. That is, I think the forces that are pushing the U.S. toward some sort of end game allowed such a man as Donald Trump to be elected President. But to say that war is what Trump wants is, in my judgment, stretching the Seilinger's point. I doubt he necessarily wants a literal war. But he's okay pushing the buttons that may cause one as a side effect.
The thought of that is sure to make both Donald Trump and Mike Pence want to hole up in a bunker about now.Maybe not. Both of them have resisted leading by example. Pence was most noteworthy by refusing to socially distance or wear a mask per Mayo Clinic policy when he visisted.
The thought of that is sure to make both Donald Trump and Mike Pence want to hole up in a bunker about now.Maybe not. Both of them have resisted leading by example. Pence was most noteworthy by refusing to socially distance or wear a mask per Mayo Clinic policy when he visisted.
...Ms Selinger predicts that civil war is inevitable in the United States. I assume she means literally, but she doesn't say. Clearly we're headed for a crisis of some form. But in fairness, the U.S. has been headed in this direction for a long time. Donald Trump as President of the U.S. is a symptom of tose forces, I believe, not the cause. That is, I think the forces that are pushing the U.S. toward some sort of end game allowed such a man as Donald Trump to be elected President. But to say that war is what Trump wants is, in my judgment, stretching the Seilinger's point. I doubt he necessarily wants a literal war. But he's okay pushing the buttons that may cause one as a side effect.
The problem is that I just don't know that the world can indulge the USA in a three year civil war followed by 30+ years of dictatorial rule to allow political passions to cool.
Well, Pence's Chief of Staff has been diagnosed with it as his press secretary, so we shall see how things proceed from here.
Both of them have resisted leading by example.
Pence was most noteworthy by refusing to socially distance or wear a mask per Mayo Clinic policy when he visited.
But apparently no-one was willing to stand up to the VP and tell him to do it right or get out.
"When you test, you find something is wrong with people."
Which is why he doesn't want his school records released. They tested him and discovered that he is a moron.
Lots of people inside the White House are starting to test positive, and they're following all the precautions they insist the rest of us don't need to.
Lots of people inside the White House are starting to test positive, and they're following all the precautions they insist the rest of us don't need to.
And even going so far as to insist that it's now acceptable for everyone else to return to work. I wonder if a time will come when the present administration stops trying to just manage the optics of this crisis and starts taking it seriously. At every step they seem to be doubling-down on the denial.
I think they're too far down the rabbit hole...
The thing that surprises me is that it seems obvious there is going to be an economic cost way over and above the lockdown, because if the current administration don't get their finger out, the rest of the world is going to socially distance itself from the US for fear of contamination.
Well worth a read: https://www.ft.com/content/97dc7de6-940b-11ea-abcd-371e24b679ed
A Croatian once said (of civil war and mass graves due to genocide) "don't think that it can never happen in your country. I used to think like that".
The more i look at Trump in the US, Johnson in the UK, Brexit and the rise of populism, the more I am convinced that Putin is a stone-cold genius at this stuff.
Well worth a read: https://www.ft.com/content/97dc7de6-940b-11ea-abcd-371e24b679ed
A Croatian once said (of civil war and mass graves due to genocide) "don't think that it can never happen in your country. I used to think like that".
Its also worth spending an hour listening to this interview: Yes, i know that the interviewer, Griffin is a nutjob, but some of the stuff talked about is remarkably prescient (and chilling).
"As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show
him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his... then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.
So basically America is stuck with demoralization and unless... even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of Americans, it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show
him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his... then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.
So basically America is stuck with demoralization and unless... even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of Americans, it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.
The more i look at Trump in the US, Johnson in the UK, Brexit and the rise of populism, the more I am convinced that Putin is a stone-cold genius at this stuff.
The lawful ways to remove a President are painfully few. There's no Thundering Cockwomble provision in the Constitution
Even Sen. McConnell tried to jump on the bandwagon of blaming the previous administration.
Well I think that motion should be table immediately. The Thundering Cockwomble Amendment is clearly desperately needed.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.But over time, the various States undermined this function with the so-called faithless elector laws. The States are free to determine how their electors are chosen, but more murk surrounds whether the States may direct how those electors should vote. Requiring them to vote the directive of the plebiscite removes their ability to deflect the occasional thundering cockwomble. The point was to make it so difficult to become President that the system would not need to allow casual means of removal that could be for political purposes. Once sworn, the President is reasonably free from challenges to his authority.
Indeed, but at least [Sen. McConnell] had the sense to say he was obviously wrong...
It's terrifying that someone like Trump can display their total unhinged detachment from reality so blatantly and people will still think he's doing great.
Like I said earlier: Trump has no leadership skills at all. Instead of leading people and stopping this madness in the US, he reverts to character and simply attacks, attacks, attacks.
I think that a number of people are now seeing this, how he has failed to quell the riots and is in fact stoking them.
I am glad I'm not American right now. I keep seeing all these people calling on citizens to vote Trump out in November but I can't for a second imagine he will actually go willingly even if it's a landslide against him. He's already trying to de-legitimise the outcome, and now he has demonstrated that he is willing to turn the military on its own citizens....Trump will not be president in January 2021 if he is not elected again even in the event the election does not take place. The president-elect (Biden?) would be sworn in then he could direct the Secret Service to evict Trump from the White House if required. If there is no election, someone in the line of succession will take Trump's place.
Well I hope that he does get the boot in November. If he doesn't I will despair for the future of the US and ther world. But one thing I think we can be pretty sure of: the end of this year and the start of the next in US politics is going to be a hell of a shitshow.
Do we have time to start building a wall on the southern border (of Canada)?
I have to say, I'm hopeful about the Senate right now--I'm hopeful that it will change hands. Because the majority of people have disapproved of how the Republicans handled the pandemic, and a majority disapprove of how they're handling the protests.
It's not just Trump that needs to be voted out.
If Biden wins the Presidency and Mitch McConnell is still Majority Leader, then nothing changes. It'll be a repeat of Obama's two terms with the Senate blocking all judicial appointments and threatening to shut down the government every other week (because of the deficit you see, which suddenly matters again). No meaningful legislation gets passed. No work gets done. FOX News plays all your favorite propaganda hits, and in 2024 they get Trump Jr. elected and we're done as a functioning democracy.
But at least the libs got owned, so it was worth it.
McConnell, Graham, Cornyn, frankly everyone but Mitt needs to lose their offices, their influence, and their fortunes. They need to suddenly find themselves retired with nothing to do but yardwork because nobody wants to touch them with a barge pole. And I know that's fantasy because of the wingnut welfare circuit, but that's what should happen.
There needs to be a housecleaning at all levels of government, federal, state, and local. Meaningful police reform has to happen at the city level.
The only way to purge the Republican party of the racist and fascist dipshits is for them to lose, massively, across the board.
Former US defence secretary James Mattis has slammed President Donald Trump's response to nationwide demonstrations triggered by the killing of George Floyd, accusing him of trying to divide the country.
The retired Marine General said he has watched this week's "unfolding events, angry and appalled..."
I note that Trump's former defence secretary has criticised him:
But this is what has me stumped: what should of been a Clinton victory became Trump's; he changed the landscape, became a disruptor.... but the Democrats fight back with the same old style of candidate that didn't work last time!
I agree with a lot of the comments here: I don't think Biden is much but - like Republican voters did with Clinton (and if I were a US voter) - I'd be not so much voting for Biden but rather against Trump.
Even his (probably not much longer) current secretary disagrees with Big Orange;
You mean Ford, but the point is there.
but the Democrats fight back with the same old style of candidate that didn't work last time!
...Sec. Esper called on States to send National Guard troops to Washington DC as peacekeeping forces. As opposed to the full-time professional military, domestic peacekeeping is within the scope of the volunteer state militias when ordinary law enforcement is unable to cope. DC having no state militia of its own, this was a justifiable call. I don't object to that policy in principle, but I object to it in this case because the need arose from the DC Metropolitan Police force's unwillingness to be political pawns. It's not as if the police were overwhelmed. It's that they did not agree to follow the specific orders they were likely being given -- to suppress and "dominate" political dissent. Sadly my State was one of the few who answered and sent troops to DC. I've voiced my objection to our leadership for that action, but of course I will go unheard.
And now it seems we have a hithterto unknown secret police force standing guard in DC. This is probably the most alarming development. And stupid, from a leadership position. Again, when the issue being protested is the accountability of policing forces, the correct answer to that is not to make the operative forces less accountable and more intimidating. It's as if this President somehow always knows to do the opposite of the sensible thing. It takes talent to be a failure at almost everything.
A good thing that you did, because you can't know for sure that you'll go unheard.
Sorry, what?
A good thing that you did, because you can't know for sure that you'll go unheard.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I think it's going to be the hotel and home owners who are protected using the 3rd amendment instead of DC as a whole.
but the Democrats fight back with the same old style of candidate that didn't work last time!
And the same overall political strategy. American swing voters really do vote for Democrats only after the Republicans have left a bitter taste. The DNC is once more putting forward the "safe" candidate, lest any of the transformative ideas other candidates propose should offend the center. They still have this nostalgic view that if they stand just left of center and portray themselves as reasonable and open to compromise, people will somehow see its natural appeal.
The DNC has little control over who wins the primaries. They can certainly help candidates with funding and networking and exposure, they can pressure other candidates to drop out (or convince them to run for different office),...
Don't be sorry - I'm interested to hear how things run in the US; it's all been quite enlightening.
Good point. You can't make good candidates step up, but you can certainly work hard to make unwanted candidates fail. I think both of you are right about the national committees. It's unfair of me to lay blame for candidate choices or success at their feet. Regarding the DNC, I recall something in the hacked emails that suggested they favored Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, and acted on that preference. But that's not the same as wanting someone over Clinton who, for lack of will, didn't run. Once the voters had selected Clinton as the candidate, they were stuck with her and all the baggage she brought with her.
I think I'm soured over Utah politics and extrapolating that irrationally to the national level. Briefly, the Utah GOP used to have a caucus/convention-only system for choosing candidates for the primary ballot. When the Tea Party basically took over the state party leadership, they lobbied for far-right delegates to the convention. Since then, the convention voting has skewed quite a bit farther to the right than the general GOP voting in the state. Many Utah Republicans are surprisingly moderates, but they were given only arch-conservatives (cough, Mike Lee, cough) as credible candidates in the primaries. Because of the circumstances of districting, it has become difficult to unseat these unrepresentative delegates. Displeasure over this led to various initiatives resulting in, among other things, S.B. 54, a law that allowed candidates to qualify for any state-run primary by collecting signatures. The Utah GOP literally bankrupted itself fighting this in court, losing finally when the Supreme Court denied certiorari for an appeal from the 10th Circuit. Rank-and-file Republicans saw the law as one of only a few ways they could get popular moderate candidates like Mitt Romney on the GOP primary ballots. (Romney came in second at the GOP convention but won the GOP primary in a landslide.) Another result was the United Utah party, composed mostly of disaffected Republicans and a few moderate Democrats.
Sorry to bring up local politics so much. It's where my understanding of politics comes from. I realize this is a national-politics thread, centered on Donald Trump.
But yeah, regardless of just the general Clinton-ness and all that entails, she was an awful campaigner. Awful. Yes, she won the popular vote, but it's the electoral votes that matter, and her being an awful campaigner cost her states that Obama had won. Twice.
I note that Trump's former defence secretary has criticised him:
Even his (probably not much longer) current secretary disagrees with Big Orange;
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/esper-milley-trump-protest.html
I'm told that it's okay because Biden will be worse.
I'm told that it's okay because Biden will be worse.
That's very much a wash-rinse-repeat rhetoric. Every fear spoken among Trump supporters seems to be based wholly on supposition or prediction for what some other leader would have done, and assurances that it would have been so much worse. A Clinton presidency, it is argued, would have been a swampy disaster for the economy, for conservative interests, and in response to the pandemic. A Biden presidency, it is proclaimed, will be just a terrible continuation of the war on honest, hardworking joes waged previously by the Obamagate suspects. Biden's scandals, it is argued, are just as far-reaching and compromisory -- if not more so -- than Trump's.
Obviously you're in trouble any time you have to pit supposition against observation. The Trump administration is objectively bad. But what's more disturbing is that the rhetoric fully admits the Administration's visible crapulence. The side-effect of any pivot is tacitly agreeing with the thing you're pivoting away from. Whether you call it "whataboutism" or ad hominem to quoque, it's just the same bad argument.
Not having followed it, why do you say she ran an awful campaign?
Small note: crapulence, while it sounds like it should mean ‘crappiness’, actually refers to intoxication and drunkenness.
Someone put up a picture of empty supermarket shelves and said this is how life would be in a Corbyn-led Labour government. Never mind that it was in fact the current reality under a Johnson-led Conservative government....
To be fair, the DNC had legitimate reasons to favor HRC over Sanders as a party nominee:
Heh. Lemme tell you about a little state called Texas, or as Molly Ivins once called it, "The National Laboratory For Bad Government."
As Tip O'Neill once said, "all politics is local".
Trump is a symptom, not the disease.
Small note: crapulence, while it sounds like it should mean ‘crappiness’, actually refers to intoxication and drunkenness.
True, but this historical etymology was almost entirely unknown to Americans, who today use it exclusively as defined in The Simpsons along with such other supposedly contrived words as "embiggen" and "cromulent."
Along your lines, "pissed" is also something you want to say carefully on different sides of the Atlantic.
A fair point. Honestly, the way you colonials mangle the mother tongue... ;)
A fair point. Honestly, the way you colonials mangle the mother tongue... ;)
this is why 'Brahms and Liszt' is the cockney rhyming slang phrase for drunk, Liszt rhyming with pissed...
We say 'pissed off' to mean what I gather from TV shows most Americans mean when they say 'pissed'.
'Fanny' is another one to be very careful with....
However, I don't think he has the capacity to see past his own narcissism to recognize the hypocrisy.
I also noted that almost to a person, every Republican in Congress that was approached for reaction about the tweet ran away from giving comment or gave some lame excuse if they did reply. Even with such a softball question as that one, they couldn't show any kind of moral backbone.
Not having followed it, why do you say she ran an awful campaign?
There are many opinions on this. Unlike engineering, this is something that may not have a distinct right or wrong answer, and it's not my area of expertise. Those disclaimers in place, here's my take.
Too much rainbow, not enough mainstream. The Clinton campaign wrongly believed that they could assemble a coalition of demographically dissimilar liberals that could outvote a homogeneous conservative base. They failed. It's a bit tone-deaf for me to say so under prevailing circumstances, but you simply cannot win a national election in the United States without broad appeal to white, working-class males who don't have college degrees. The campaign's decision to court one group over the other produced an image of Hillary Clinton as a coastal elitist. That doesn't play in Peoria. Promising to stand up for minority rights, and even having a history of doing it, are always things America likes to see and hear. Especially this month, where the long-standing problems are once again boiling over. But it simply doesn't produce voters in sufficient numbers by itself. It's amazingly difficult to craft a credible message of equality and the breaking down of barriers that resounds well enough with both the BLM types and the Peoria types to result in an American majority. I'm not sure I could do it. The problem with the Clinton campaign is that they didn't even try.
Too much science and not enough campaigning. The 2016 Clinton campaign relied on very sophisticated data-mining and analytics models. Now -- with expertise -- I can tell you that this is a giant growth sector and it will revolutionize the way we make decisions. The problem was that the Clinton campaign's model was wrong. Just because you are taking a scientific approach to focusing efforts doesn't mean your science is valid. The analytics model badly mispredicted the outcomes of the GOP primary in several states. Rather than accept that their approach didn't work, and return to proven-but-intuitive campaign strategies, they assured themselves that they would be able to refine the analytics to assure victory. This did not happen. Again the model failed to accurately predict the outcomes of the battleground states that fell to Donald Trump. It was telling them one thing, and seasoned campaigners were telling them aother thing, and the seasoned campaigners turned out to be right. Had Hillary Clinton simply campaigned the way her husband had, I believe she'd have had a better chance of winning.
Someone put up a picture of empty supermarket shelves and said this is how life would be in a Corbyn-led Labour government. Never mind that it was in fact the current reality under a Johnson-led Conservative government....
Ditto. I mentioned my Fox-News-addled father-in-law. On the first, worst night of BLM protests, we got a text message saying, "Welcome to Bernie Sanders' America." Except, of course, that it was literally America under Donald Trump and largely his fault.
Some Trump supporter makes a speculative comment about what some Prog (how they love to use that term, as though they're convinced it triggers progressives) might do. Then another Trump supporter treats the first comment as something that Prog has done, and then criticises the Prog's morality on the basis of that entirely fictional action.
But yeah, regardless of just the general Clinton-ness and all that entails, she was an awful campaigner. Awful. Yes, she won the popular vote, but it's the electoral votes that matter, and her being an awful campaigner cost her states that Obama had won. Twice.
Not having followed it, why do you say she ran an awful campaign?
Now, I don't actually believe the people requesting tickets are why that rally had terrible attendance; the number of tickets supposedly issued was several times the size of the venue, after all. But it is interesting to see where alliances are forming.
John Oliver had an interesting segment on "Last Week Tonight" last night about how the K-Pop fans / TikTok users have been flooding Twitter hashtags started by right-wing groups with K-Pop videos. It makes those hashtags useless for their intended purpose (organizing rallies, spreading misinformation and hate, etc.). It's basically negating the right's use of social media to influence the election, and I love it.
Turns out the campaign isn't tech savvy, to the surprise of . . . no one, I expect. It never occurred to them that you can fake those things, I guess.
John Oliver had an interesting segment on "Last Week Tonight" last night about how the K-Pop fans / TikTok users have been flooding Twitter hashtags started by right-wing groups with K-Pop videos. It makes those hashtags useless for their intended purpose (organizing rallies, spreading misinformation and hate, etc.). It's basically negating the right's use of social media to influence the election, and I love it.
I'm very proud of them. Turns out the campaign isn't tech savvy, to the surprise of . . . no one, I expect. It never occurred to them that you can fake those things, I guess. The campaign's going to be sending fake e-mails to Oliver Clothesoff for months.
The reason you are having so many heatwaves in the US, is because you have so many thermometers. If you stopped looking at your thermometers, you would have many more cool days and no heatwaves. 😂It wouldn't be as cold in Alaska either! Who says Donald has no great ideas?
The White House, however, said Saturday that Trump was not briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence, but didn't confirm or deny the underlying reporting that Russia was giving out rewards to attack U.S. soldiers.It has been two days now. I guess Trump is trying to decide if he likes his military as much as he does Putin.
Russians paying bounties to the Taliban for killing American soldiers?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawmakers-want-answers-on-russia-paying-taliban-to-attack-us-troops?fbclid=IwAR2X55lbO-RZuwVdjI_PXkvswy1N4r5BTvkLbB4O1sKoFC4KvMVzYZcNuuMQuoteThe White House, however, said Saturday that Trump was not briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence, but didn't confirm or deny the underlying reporting that Russia was giving out rewards to attack U.S. soldiers.It has been two days now. I guess Trump is trying to decide if he likes his military as much as he does Putin.
Perhaps Trump cares as little for his military as he does POW's.
A few weeks ago and a couple of pages up I speculated about which Republican critics of Trump might be listened to by Trump supporters over at UM. Following this story, I can see they've crossed John McCain and John Bolton off the list (yes I realise McCain is dead!).
Thanks to this article we can see if they'll listen to Lindsey Graham or Mike McCaul.
My other concern is that some of these UM Trump supporters are now so wound up in their certainty of a Trump victory in the election that I'm starting to wonder that they'll think that any Biden victory short of a landslide must somehow have been obtained by voter fraud.
Perhaps this may be the way to detach a few rusted-on Trump supporters...
I've read three different versions of the bounty presentation attributed to the White House now:
* He wasn't presented with anything. No other comment.
* He was presented, but it was said to be not credible.
* They didn't present it to him because it wasn't credible.
While I would accept that it might not be credible, I would not be surprised at all if he discounted it primarily because he likes Putin.
But a US official familiar with the latest information told CNN on Monday that intelligence about the Russian bounty was included in the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) sometime in the spring. The written document includes the intelligence communities' most important and urgent information. On Monday night, the New York Times reported that the information was included in a written briefing to the President in late February.
Trump is not known to read his daily briefing, and instead prefers an oral briefing a few times a week.
The President receives a copy of the PDB every day, as does Vice President Mike Pence, but Trump is notorious for not reading it. Even after intelligence analysts added more photos and charts to make it more appealing, the document often goes unread, according to people familiar with the matter.
I'm sure his supporters have some defense for why that's okay. Now, personally, I believe he's functionally illiterate and simply can't read it, but still.You should see the gymnastics they go through to justify his gun grab and other anti-gun stuff.
I'm sure his supporters have some defense for why that's okay.
Here is a possible scenario: Trump is deliberately fueling the fires of unrest anywhere he can, and will use COVID-19 and the riots, etc, to "delay" the November elections, probably trying to invoke some type of emergency powers.....I'm sure someone has explained to Trump that his term ends (along with the VP's and House Speaker's) on January 2021 unless he is re-elected. The constitution provides for a new president (Pres of the Senate?) if the election does not happen or there is some other reason for the office to be vacant.
I'm sure someone has explained to Trump
The constitution provides for a new president (Pres of the Senate?)...
Uk press.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53597975
That's the first step. Now Trump supporters will be saying "Yeah! This election is rigged! It needs to be delayed!" Of course, people are going to point out that the Constitution says he can't do that.... but this is where he'll get himself "...extraordinary powers for extraordinary times...".
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's term as a Member ends at the same time Donald Trump's term as President, hence also does her speakership.
I don't think so. The new congress comes in on January 3rd, the new president (assuming there is one) comes in on January 20th.
In fact, the electoral votes that officially determine who is and who is not president, will be counted by the new congress, not the old one.
A good demagogue never lets something as insignificant as facts get in the way of their spiel and narrative.
That's the first step. Now Trump supporters will be saying "Yeah! This election is rigged! It needs to be delayed!" Of course, people are going to point out that the Constitution says he can't do that.... but this is where he'll get himself "...extraordinary powers for extraordinary times...".
They'll also have to conveniently ignore the states (not to mention countries) that already use mail-in voting, and don't have problems with it. Just like they had to with the "lots of cases" of voter fraud that were claimed, and yet almost none were ever found, including by Trump's own commission.
A good demagogue never lets something as insignificant as facts get in the way of their spiel and narrative.
That's the first step. Now Trump supporters will be saying "Yeah! This election is rigged! It needs to be delayed!" Of course, people are going to point out that the Constitution says he can't do that.... but this is where he'll get himself "...extraordinary powers for extraordinary times...".
They'll also have to conveniently ignore the states (not to mention countries) that already use mail-in voting, and don't have problems with it. Just like they had to with the "lots of cases" of voter fraud that were claimed, and yet almost none were ever found, including by Trump's own commission.
A good demagogue never lets something as insignificant as facts get in the way of their spiel and narrative.
I realize this degree of electoral fidelity is common in more well-developed countries, but it is an example of what has been achieved in some parts of the U.S. There is simply no truth to the claim that a U.S. election conducted by mail would be more susceptible to fraud than any other method, and Republicans know this.
I realize this degree of electoral fidelity is common in more well-developed countries, but it is an example of what has been achieved in some parts of the U.S. There is simply no truth to the claim that a U.S. election conducted by mail would be more susceptible to fraud than any other method, and Republicans know this.
But, but, dead people voting in Chicago! But, but, Trump said it was a problem! ::)
I've also seen people claiming that the reason there isn't more widespread voter fraud (even though it has never actually been an issue) is because of all of the efforts of Republicans, including the restrictive ID checks and registration laws. (Which any sane person knows have primarily been a way to disenfranchise minorities) They use a lack of the problem to prove that the problem needs to be addressed even further. And people buy it.
Quite so. The basic demagogue narrative is irritatingly simple: take one group, remind them of what they don't have, and blame another, disenfranchised minority group why they don't have it.A good demagogue never lets something as insignificant as facts get in the way of their spiel and narrative.
Indeed, but what I find infuriating is that there are significant numbers of people who will continue to believe the narrative. I can point to people who now believe that mail-in ballots are fraught with fraud, and who will defend that belief to the death simply because the demagogue said it.
I realize this degree of electoral fidelity is common in more well-developed countries, but it is an example of what has been achieved in some parts of the U.S. There is simply no truth to the claim that a U.S. election conducted by mail would be more susceptible to fraud than any other method, and Republicans know this.
But, but, dead people voting in Chicago! But, but, Trump said it was a problem! ::)
I've also seen people claiming that the reason there isn't more widespread voter fraud (even though it has never actually been an issue) is because of all of the efforts of Republicans, including the restrictive ID checks and registration laws. (Which any sane person knows have primarily been a way to disenfranchise minorities) They use a lack of the problem to prove that the problem needs to be addressed even further. And people buy it.
Hot take: I don't think Trump, personally, has political agendas. It's all personal to him. It crosses into political when he needs it to get what he wants.
I agree, although I'm sure he has Evangelicals, the NRA, etc. whispering in his ear and convincing him to do things he wouldn't otherwise care about.
I agree, although I'm sure he has Evangelicals, the NRA, etc. whispering in his ear and convincing him to do things he wouldn't otherwise care about.What do you think the NRA is whispering?
If the State of New York has its way, the NRA won't be influencing anyone much longer. Maybe instead of getting someone who represents the gun manufacturers, there'll be an organization that represents gun owners after that.
Putting aside what type of weapons are legal to sell & own, why is there such opposition to a national firearms database?
Of course, it could be that because I'm from a rural area it was more of a foregone conclusion that people would own guns, so there was no need to talk about the Constitution, but my memory is of safety being pushed, not an agenda.
So I'm not surprised that recent events have exposed the gun-rights activists as being less motivated by Constitutional concerns and more likely motivated by far-right politics.
So I'm not surprised that recent events have exposed the gun-rights activists as being less motivated by Constitutional concerns and more likely motivated by far-right politics.
Indeed. In Florida (where I live) after the school shootings, it was proposed that they would arm select teachers, giving them training, and requiring them to keep current on their qualifications by re-certifying either every year or every other year. I remember Trevor Noah (I believe) stating that this sounds like a great requirement, but that they should remove the word teacher and replace it with citizen. Completely logical, and in keeping with the actual meaning of the text of the Second Amendment referring to well-regulated. (having a firearm in proper condition and have proficiency in its use) Yet those same activists you mentioned would never go for such a thing, and I don't recall the NRA supporting the idea either. Funny that.
So yes, people who would have registered in good faith as firearms owners have a fear of direct action should policy change -- as it inevitably will. But there is also the fear of indirect action in the form of parallel construction. This is a prosecutorial technique called "parallel construction" by which information that would be inadmissible by itself can nevertheless be used to obtain admissible evidence by informing enforcement efforts.
Generally, being convicted of a felony disqualifies one from legally owning a firearm. If a prosecutor who, for political reasons, wanted to reduce gun ownership in his district, having a handy list of gun owners would let him focus investigative efforts on those people. Investigators are typically scarce resources, so a prosecutor must exercise discretion in what cases to pursue. The existence of such databases can inform that discretion to nefarious ends. Even if we take steps to make that information privileged, there is generally nothing to prevent a prosecutor from misusing the privilege so long as no part of that misuse is evident in what he actually presents in court. The defense can inquire into the prosecutorial operation only insofar as it is was present in the complaint.
Hypothetically, Tom may be prosecuted on felony charges, whereas Dick and Harry are not. And Tom's charges don't need to have anything to do with firearms; he can be charged, for example, with money-laundering. And Dick and Harry can have equally or more evidently heinous felonious lifestyles. In this case the only reason Tom was charged was because the prosecutor had the resources to prosecute only one of the three cases referred to him, and he chose Tom because he discovered Tom owns a gun and he wants to deprive him of it. There is no valid defense to be found in the notion that Dick or Harry should have been investigated and charged instead.
Acknowledging that my view on guns is very different being a Brit, where we have very strict gun control laws (that were toughened up after a school shooting), that just seems to be solving the wrong problem.
Acknowledging that my view on guns is very different being a Brit, where we have very strict gun control laws (that were toughened up after a school shooting), that just seems to be solving the wrong problem.
And you folks aren't remembering the NRA wrong; its focus has shifted in the last few decades. For one thing, it's well established that the primary force driving the current NRA is support for gun manufacturers, not gun owners.
Of course, in more recent times they pushed for the legislation which effectively crippled the ATF and other agencies, including state and local LEOs, from having an effective and efficient way to trace gun ownership, making it impossible for them to keep anything but hard copy records, requiring ridiculous number of man-hours to do checks that should take minutes at most using a computer.
Having gun owners be responsible ones, who know how to properly use and maintain their weapons, and have to demonstrate that they also are well aware of the actual laws and rights, is at least a step in a positive direction.
If folks need guns for an uprising, they can just find a way, like the gun fetishists are always saying criminals will do anyway.
If folks need guns for an uprising, they can just find a way, like the gun fetishists are always saying criminals will do anyway.
The gun fetishists have shown that all their talk about needing guns to form a militia against a tyrannical government has been shown to be nothing more than nonsense. There IS a tyrannical government in place at the moment- a government that is openly racist, disappears people off the streets, is riding roughshod over the Constitution, has allowed 160,000+ people to die through sheer ineptitude. And all the while the gun fetishists have sided with that tyrannical government is led by a man who says things that appeals to their inbuilt biases.
I think a key issue is that the majority of gun owners really do have the best intentions but you know what they say about that...
Plunking tin cans laid out on a fence rail, duck hunting on a quiet lake with guys you've known forever, skeet shooting -- these are the things many Americans naturally gravitate to when they think of how they would use a gun, if they would use one at all. But of course these don't make the news, and they make for unexciting television and movies. So the perception of the U.S. in many people's eyes is the glorification of violence and gun culture that we see in entertainment. And television news these days is little removed from entertainment.
I assure you that for every person in the world who's looking at the U.S. with despair and alarm at what's going on, there are plenty of us Americans doing exactly the same thing.
Plunking tin cans laid out on a fence rail, duck hunting on a quiet lake with guys you've known forever, skeet shooting -- these are the things many Americans naturally gravitate to when they think of how they would use a gun, if they would use one at all. But of course these don't make the news, and they make for unexciting television and movies. So the perception of the U.S. in many people's eyes is the glorification of violence and gun culture that we see in entertainment. And television news these days is little removed from entertainment.
I assure you that for every person in the world who's looking at the U.S. with despair and alarm at what's going on, there are plenty of us Americans doing exactly the same thing.
As I've said before, I have no doubt the majority of gun owners are responsible and it wouldn't even occur to them in all but the most extreme examples to even point their gun at a person, much less fire one at someone. However, as you say, that's not newsworthy.
One question I do have though, about the police use of guns. Why is it whenever I see a report about a police shooting it always involves multiple shots? In the latest case a guy was shot seven times in the back from point blank range. Since one well-aimed bullet will kill or incapacitate (and even one badly aimed bullet has a good chance of doing either of those things as well), why are trained law enforcement officers unloading multiple bullets into anyone? And that's before we even get onto the dubious nature of what amounts to summary execution for maybe going for a weapon...
One question I do have though, about the police use of guns. Why is it whenever I see a report about a police shooting it always involves multiple shots? In the latest case a guy was shot seven times in the back from point blank range. Since one well-aimed bullet will kill or incapacitate (and even one badly aimed bullet has a good chance of doing either of those things as well), why are trained law enforcement officers unloading multiple bullets into anyone? And that's before we even get onto the dubious nature of what amounts to summary execution for maybe going for a weapon...
I think I can answer this.
It's not an American thing, it's a Use Of Force thing: once you've decided to shoot you keep shooting as quickly as possible to end the threat as soon as possible.
Sure, one bullet may incapacitate a person, but the time spent waiting to see whether it has is time the person can use to do something - such as pull out a weapon and harm a third party. Better to keep shooting until you see the person fall to the ground.
It's harder than it looks to hit a moving target with a handgun, even at point-blank range.
Thank you all for the replies. Most interesting. It seems I am guilty of the same fallacious thinking I have pulled up JFK conspiracy theorists on, in assuming that trained officers are not so subject to the same instincts and adrenaline as the rest of us. Also highlights how little I know of actual gun use or the effects of being shot. Frankly, I am still glad to live in a country where strict gun control laws make either myself or someone I know having any first-hand experience of this pretty unlikely, and where the majority of police I encounter are not equipped with the option of using lethal force if they think I might be reaching for a weapon rather than my driver's licence.
Seeing any armed police makes me extremely uneasy.
it gives police unions a toehold to fight back and say, "You people who've never fired a gun don't know what you're talking about."
The analogy to train drivers is apt. This is a chronic problem in transportation. If equipment makers get to the make the safety rules, a crash is always due to operator error. Conversely if the operators' union makes the safety rules, a crash is always due to equipment failure.
The police are an arm of the government, which ought to be an extension of the people. They are the only ones authorized to employ force (sometimes at their discretion) without the customary legal consequences. But the point is that what they do is done in the name of the people.
Those who have never fired a gun shouldn't try to judge whether a police officer should have aimed at a suspect's ankle instead of his head.
Those of us who have never been threatened with deadly violence at work might not make the best rules by which police can employ force to defend themselves.
But the people for whom the police are agents and by whose authority they can, if desired, wield deadly force ought to be fully qualified to say what the moral boundaries are. And yes, it may weigh disproportionately against the police. But that will have to be the job. To say we have to respect the police at all costs, and approve their brutal tactics because we've given them a hard job to do, abrogates our role as the ultimate authority in whose name they carry out their duty.
Similarly, if you don't know what the police are doing in your name, that's not much better.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I may not be an expert in policing, I may not be an expert in making and driving trains, but I am entrusting my safety to the people who are experts...
A justified rebuke as this was precisely what I had done.
However, there are elements that provoke a visceral reaction, such as being shot in the back, or being shot because there might be a weapon, or being shot in bed...
I am disturbed greatly by the constant discussions that go on here and in other places about increasing police powers in regard to crime prevention. This inevitably leads to punitive measures being taken against people who have not in fact committed any crime as yet on the basis that they might do so.
...but in a country like the US where having a gun is defeneded as a right of all law abiding citizens, does proving the person the police shot was armed justify the use of lethal force?
What does one do in the case that the police stop a driver and ask for their licence, and the licence is in the glove compartment or in a pocket of their coat and there happens to be a gun nearby?
If equipment makers get to the make the safety rules, a crash is always due to operator error. Conversely if the operators' union makes the safety rules, a crash is always due to equipment failure.
If you open your glove compartment to fetch your license and a handgun falls out, you will have broken no law (in Utah). But you will have failed common sense. Even though no state law requires it, it's highly advisable to inform the officer that you are armed, that you have a proper permit, where the firearm is, and whether it's loaded.
That said, do criminals obtain these permits and follow the laws? Obviously not. And a violation of that is simply one more charge added to their list. Not much consolation after shots have already been exchanged, I know. But it should be mentioned that laws restricting the ownership and possession of firearms in America -- such as they are -- are generally vigorously enforced.
Though of course at least one person has been shot by the police for doing just that.
Though of course there are also some pretty prominent exceptions to that.
He's also the person who asked me where this "well-regulated militia" stuff I was quoting came from, since it wasn't in the Second Amendment originally.
A cousin of mine was a child actor (actually, I know most of the people here have seen at least one of his movies, if for no other reason than to mock it--he's in Armageddon).
He would've been okay regardless; his parents are good people who wouldn't have exploited his money. But there's a kid on YouTube that I worry a lot about...
What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism?
Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.
Under Communism, it is the other way around.
But honestly I don't see how a grown man -- a Senator -- can just so knee-jerkedly shift into speculation and conspiracy theories. It's like these people literally don't know how to think otherwise.
Now, I firmly believe Trump doesn't really care about anyone but himself, but for most of the others, they're so intensely tribalist that white people at a BLM rally are inherently suspicious because why do they care?
They literally cut out part of the wall of the soundstage and built the replica of the entry outside it, so that you can go from outside to the interior sets in one long tracking shot -- their trademark.
I see the flap today is over a selectively edited video clip purporting to show the President meandering in alleged confusion after talking to reporters, instead of walking to Marine One. The longer clip shows he was merely waiting for Melania and shows no sign -- at least at that time -- of impairment. Yeah, don't do that. I don't agree with the "fight fire with fire" rationale. Donald Trump gives us plenty of factual reasons to oppose his actions. We don't need to be making stuff up.
it gives police unions a toehold to fight back and say, "You people who've never fired a gun don't know what you're talking about."
It's actually true that the police, having direct first-hand experience of police work, have the best knowledge and experience to judge things like whether use of force was justified in a particular situation. The problem is, they don't have the best motive.
When you are the police, you may sometimes have to be judged by people who don't know what it's like themselves. What other alternative is there? You could say, "we don't know first-hand the difficulties and challenges that police face, so whatever you decide to do, we'll take your word if you feel it was justified", which declares open-season for all manners of abuse.
This isn't unique to police. If you're driving the train, and the train crashes, there's going to be an inquiry in which people who don't drive trains decide whether you have some responsibility or not. We could decide, train drivers can only be judged by other train drivers, which guarantees that the people doing the judging know a lot about what it's like to drive trains, what sorts of problems can occur, what the best ways to handle those problems are, whether it's difficult or easy, and so on. They're also the people who have the best incentive to say, when a train crashes, it's the fault of anyone except the person driving it.
It's simply the hard reality. When force is used, there may have to be a justification, and the justification may have to be made to people who aren't front-line police officers. I think the problems likely to occur if police can only be judged by themselves, are obvious.
A lot of things are good ideas until you factor in the worst side of human nature.
Labor is in crisis in the U.S., and has been since the 1980s. We don't have a credible labor movement. We don't have a credible labor political party. As such, the One Percent manages to convince everyone, on the basis of the visible corruption in labor unions, that unions are wasteful and bad and should be abolished as impediments to business competitiveness (read: impediments to obscene profits funneled into executive compensation packages).
That's why no one films entertainment in Hollywood anymore. The reason we have new large-scale, regional production facilities in North America -- Atlanta, Albuquerque, Park City, Vancouver, Toronto, New York -- are that the labor unions had such a powerful stranglehold over Hollywood film and television production that it literally did become cheaper to move everything elsewhere. All the Disney Channel movies in the 1990s and 2000s were filmed in a warehouse-studio in an industrial complex near the downtown Salt Lake Home Depot store. Sure, IATSE (film production crews) and SAG/AFTRA (actors) and DGA (directors) are alive and well in Utah, but they don't crap all over the studios.
The idea of organized labor and collective bargaining is great. It serves as a necessary check on the power of capital. But power inevitably corrupts. Or rather, the opportunity to wield power attracts those who would wield it for ulterior motives, whether in government, industry, or labor. And this runs roughshod over what otherwise would have been a good organization serving a valuable purpose. Quite a lot of good things, such as government and policing, are ruined by human nature. Even controversial topics like private ownership of firearms can't be discussed without an army of not-so-straw men arising out of human nature.
This is why I think the American Experiment is not so much whether a representative government of, by, and for the people can long endure. It's whether such a disparate rabble of people can unify under one banner. George Washington said, in one of the brilliant addresses Alexander Hamilton wrote for him, that the two-edged sword of American government was that it allowed maximum freedom, so long as individual discipline would be maintained. People will simply not tolerate abuses of power or encroachment upon their rights. And if they did not behave with honor and discipline themselves, the people -- in one form or another -- would take steps to enforce good behavior more broadly. If not by government authority, then by taking to the streets. If I, through my entitled and wanton misbehavior, trespass upon Gillianren in any way she finds uncomfortable, the courts may redress. Or they may not, because I might not have committed any cognizable tort. But that doesn't mean she has to endure my boorish conduct. Thus breeds contempt among neighbors.
I also know I'm setting myself up for failure, but I really am hoping that we will actually have a very large turnout, in whatever form that happens to be. I'm sick of having such a low percentage of people casting votes. If he gets re-elected, I'd like it to reflect the wishes of the overwhelming majority of eligible voters, not just the pathetic 58% that voted last time. I know in some states and districts the results are pretty much a foregone conclusion, but that's not the case everywhere, and even so, those in the minority should still be counted.
Which raises the obvious question of why. I'm reminded of this quote from Ronald Wright (about whom I know nothing else): "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Which is to say the marketing of the American Dream has been so successful that any failure to achieve it seems to be seen as the fault of the person themselves rather than any external factors. I mean, I'm sure I've seen somewhere that even lowly paid people don't like the idea of raising income taxes on the wealthiest Americans because they can so vividly see themselves belonging to that class at some point in the future.
And yet in the pre-unionised days, a doco I saw recently about Walt Disney suggested his workplace in the late 1930s was a nightmare...
But to go back to my last point, Hollywood itself plays an insidious role in marketing the American Dream, thanks to movies about people who succeed at the American Dream from the most trying circumstances, especially if they can market it as involving real people who really did succeed from the most trying circumstances.
...and then there's the fact that the job naturally suits extroverts, which not all of us are.
It's a shame that unions seem to have a bad reputation in the USA.
It's hard to see this as anything but companies doing what they think they can get away with, unless they're shown up by either internal whistleblowers or unions.
This is why I think the American Experiment is not so much whether a representative government of, by, and for the people can long endure. It's whether such a disparate rabble of people can unify under one banner. George Washington said, in one of the brilliant addresses Alexander Hamilton wrote for him, that the two-edged sword of American government was that it allowed maximum freedom, so long as individual discipline would be maintained. People will simply not tolerate abuses of power or encroachment upon their rights. And if they did not behave with honor and discipline themselves, the people -- in one form or another -- would take steps to enforce good behavior more broadly. If not by government authority, then by taking to the streets. If I, through my entitled and wanton misbehavior, trespass upon Gillianren in any way she finds uncomfortable, the courts may redress. Or they may not, because I might not have committed any cognizable tort. But that doesn't mean she has to endure my boorish conduct. Thus breeds contempt among neighbors.
After all, even a supposedly anti-democratic party can win a democratic election if enough people support it, and then enact the anti-democratic policy agenda it says it was elected to undertake. The scary thing is that such things have happened...
It's not safe for my sister to return to the classroom.
…
My brother-in-law teaches high school science in an affluent school district in Idaho.
…
He and his wife (my sister) figure they'll both have COVID-19 within a month.
Of course nobody believed the President when he downplayed the danger back in the spring. And now nobody believes it was merely to reassure the nation.
I hope they are lucky and don't get it, and if they do I hope they come through it OK.
Regrettably I have seen evidence that some actually do believe the bullshit of 'reassuring the nation.'
They seem to subscribe to some notion that if you tell a nation there is a deadly disease coming and measures need to be taken to contain it mass panic will result.
The idea that you could reassure a group of people by telling them that there is a deadly disease coming, that measures are put in place for protection, and that everything that can be done to understand and prevent this disease is being done seems alien to them.
...the strange notion among many Americans that the United States is inherently invincible, that our institutions will prevent anything truly bad from happening, and that all these things are just tempests in a teapot fomented by The Other Guys for political reasons.
Which raises the obvious question of why. I'm reminded of this quote from Ronald Wright (about whom I know nothing else): "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Which is to say the marketing of the American Dream has been so successful that any failure to achieve it seems to be seen as the fault of the person themselves rather than any external factors. I mean, I'm sure I've seen somewhere that even lowly paid people don't like the idea of raising income taxes on the wealthiest Americans because they can so vividly see themselves belonging to that class at some point in the future.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head. There's an even shorter answer that says what you've formulated here, but in a very quotable form: Americans are terrified of the S-word -- socialism.
I'm a little unclear what argument (if any) is being made with the Ronald Wright quote.
Is the idea that people in the US should support more socialistic policies, because it is in their self-interest to do so?
It's that all you have to do to get a certain segment of US society to oppose an idea is to call it socialism.
But as Gillianren points out, it's well-entrenched political rhetoric in the U.S.
Anything that smacks of taxing people and using the proceeds to provide basic services or temporary assistance to the less fortunate (read: everyone who isn't a millionaire) gets labeled "socialism" by the right, and that effectively kills support for it from their base.
The visual you get for this is some hardworking rural citizen, obviously a white, middle-aged man in a flannel shirt and work gloves leaning against the side of his pickup truck.
It's something of a side issue, but I'd be interested in seeing evidence to that point, that using the label causes people to object to policies they might otherwise support. I know in politics you're supposed to portray your opponents as stupid, but do they really just object to the word, or do they object to the actual policies?
This is why I find the Ronald Wright quote so fascinating. It seems to take it as a given that, of course, people act purely in their own self-interest, and thus would adopt "socialism" if and only if you can convince them that they, personally, are better off under it.
Which raises the obvious question of why. I'm reminded of this quote from Ronald Wright (about whom I know nothing else): "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Which is to say the marketing of the American Dream has been so successful that any failure to achieve it seems to be seen as the fault of the person themselves rather than any external factors. I mean, I'm sure I've seen somewhere that even lowly paid people don't like the idea of raising income taxes on the wealthiest Americans because they can so vividly see themselves belonging to that class at some point in the future.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head. There's an even shorter answer that says what you've formulated here, but in a very quotable form: Americans are terrified of the S-word -- socialism.
I'm a little unclear what argument (if any) is being made with the Ronald Wright quote.
Is the idea that people in the US should support more socialistic policies, because it is in their self-interest to do so?
To convince many Americans that socialist policies are in their best interest, I think you'd have to show them examples of the socialist policies we already have and explain why that's a good thing. One of the classic examples in American history was privatized fire brigades. We discovered that centralizing emergency response and making it a public good is a much better way to get it done.
My understanding of the way the quote is intended is this:
<further extended contents>
It's hard to see how this can be resolved in any way other than ugly, and that it will be at the expense of ordinary Americans, not the rich.
Whereas increasing my disability check even fifty dollars a month would help me get more things I actually need, and my spending that money would boost the economy more than Bezos hoarding it would.
But I'm not sure this really fits the quote very well.
Are public fire brigades something that promotes the self-interest of the poor, and damages the self-interest of the rich, such that people who are rich, or who have a good chance of becoming rich in the future, ought to oppose them?
The aspect of this that I find interesting, every single time I see it is, the quote seems to take it as axiomatic that people ought to be behave strictly in their own self-interest. I suppose Ronald Wright could have argued, socialistic policies are not harmful to the interests of the rich.
But if he ever advanced those arguments, I've never seen them quoted by anyone.
I see this one all the time, which seemingly argues that the absence of socialistic tendencies in the US is a result of some misjudgement by the American people, who have a wrong idea about where their own narrow self-interests lie. The idea that they ought to do something other than pursue their own narrow self-interests is completely absent.
This seems to be a factor commonly missed here in the UK as well. Poorer people help sustain the economy because they spend what little money they have.
This time last year the media was filled with articles decrying millennials as not being able to afford their own homes because they insist on spending money on breakfasts and lunches in cafes and bars rather than at home, and now the chancellor of the exchequer is practically begging them to keep doing it because people NOT frequenting these cafes and bars is apparently screwing up the economy!
Under the private enterprise system, fire brigades had contracts with insurance companies to put out fires for the policyholder. There was no incentive to put out fires gratis.
To convince many Americans that socialist policies are in their best interest, I think you'd have to show them examples of the socialist policies we already have and explain why that's a good thing. One of the classic examples in American history was privatized fire brigades. We discovered that centralizing emergency response and making it a public good is a much better way to get it done.
But I'm not sure this really fits the quote very well. Are public fire brigades something that promotes the self-interest of the poor, and damages the self-interest of the rich, such that people who are rich, or who have a good chance of becoming rich in the future, ought to oppose them?
The aspect of this that I find interesting, every single time I see it is, the quote seems to take it as axiomatic that people ought to be behave strictly in their own self-interest. I suppose Ronald Wright could have argued, socialistic policies are not harmful to the interests of the rich. (Is the fire brigade an example of that, if we call it a "socialistic" policy?) He could also have argued that rich people ought to support socialistic policies, even if those policies are against their own self-interest. But if he ever advanced those arguments, I've never seen them quoted by anyone. I see this one all the time, which seemingly argues that the absence of socialistic tendencies in the US is a result of some misjudgement by the American people, who have a wrong idea about where their own narrow self-interests lie. The idea that they ought to do something other than pursue their own narrow self-interests is completely absent.
Part of the marketing of the American Dream is the notion that it's okay for billionaires to receive obscene amounts of money, because they're just investing it back into the economy, and doing it at a scale and in ways that ordinary people can't match. It will all trickle down to us. First of all, that's not what they're doing with all the money; they're removing it from circulation and sequestering it offshore. Second, that's not what makes a strong economy. A strong economy is bottom-up, not top-down. It's stronger the more people who can participate in it. Giving $2000 to 200 million people every month is what keeps the economy going, not giving a trillion dollars to five people.
Our state's "reopen the economy" plan was supposed to be based on science. Turns out it was written by a group of business leaders with almost no input from health officials. And don't get me started on the practice of decrying the Millennials for supposedly failing the economy. I tend to believe the economy has failed Millennials.
,but the relevant bit is that it isn't "being invested." It's sitting in banks. It's not circulating. It's stagnating.
Oh, my, yes. Most of my good friends are Millennials (I'm at the tail end of Gen X, myself), and they don't fit the perception of lazy and entitled at all.
The key to this marketing success has been to focus so heavily on the success side of the equation that no one talks about that converse - what happens to the people who fail.
And in the USA, people have been marketing a distorted explanation of both capitalism and socialism that oversells the upsides of capitalism and the downsides of socialism. It's therefore not surprising many Americans reject socialism as they understand it.
A capitalist system allows people to accumulate as much wealth as they might ever be able to accumulate (needed or not), with the converse that success isn't guaranteed, and if you fail then you have to look after yourself to the best of your now limited resources. A socialist system (details depending on which one you're looking at) has the government ensuring that everyone has at least a reasonable standard of living, and pays for this by heavier taxation which is aimed at the wealthy.
To me, Wright's observation is, simply, that socialist policies are unlikely to be adopted in the USA because the marketing of capitalism has been so wildly successful. The key to this marketing success has been to focus so heavily on the success side of the equation that no one talks about that converse - what happens to the people who fail.
And my friends are relatively privileged; few of them have kids, and most of them only have one job each.This always shocks me, that so many people in the US have to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, compared to typical westernised economies where only the very poorest are in that situation.
Whereas increasing my disability check even fifty dollars a month would help me get more things I actually need, and my spending that money would boost the economy more than Bezos hoarding it would.
This seems to be a factor commonly missed here in the UK as well. Poorer people help sustain the economy because they spend what little money they have.
The sad irony of this pandemic is that it has exposed just how absurd the economy here actually is, being based primarily on people buying crap they don't need and running a 'just in time' model of delivery and stock control. This time last year the media was filled with articles decrying millennials as not being able to afford their own homes because they insist on spending money on breakfasts and lunches in cafes and bars rather than at home, and now the chancellor of the exchequer is practically begging them to keep doing it because people NOT frequenting these cafes and bars is apparently screwing up the economy!
This, in my view, sums up the main difference between the US and what many Americans would regard as "socialist" countries, e.g. most wealthy, westernised, OECD member countries. Although not fully socialist politically, it's recognised that society functions much better when its less fortunate members are provided for (although I admit this doesn't always happen as it should). Whether it's through healthcare, basic income, low-cost housing or other means, giving people support at a tiny cost when spread over the rest of the population, has overall benefits for everyone.
Yet I still see so many comments on social media along the lines of "why should I pay for someone else's treatment", not recognising that they would see those benefits when suddenly faced with a major operation or long-term medication needs.
This is planned poverty; the system is set up to keep disabled people poor.
What's darkly humorous (and I don't mean to make light of others' plight) is the rhetoric is floating around that people will want to remain on unemployment insurance because the benefits are more than they can earn at minimum wage in a full-time job. This is factually true.
…
And because this is America, the cry comes up that we should lower the benefits, because why should we pay more for someone not to work than to pay someone who is working. It doesn't seem to occur to the powers that be that this is an excellent argument for doubling or tripling the federal minimum wage.
But I don't suck anywhere near as money out of the economy as a major corporation that qualifies for enormous tax benefits and doesn't pay its employees enough to survive.
I won't deny being a drain--though I provide some benefit...
But I don't suck anywhere near as money out of the economy as a major corporation that qualifies for enormous tax benefits and doesn't pay its employees enough to survive.
Except what they don't tell you, of course, is that the total benefits budget is billions of pounds a year, so the actual cost of fraud is a tiny percentage of the total spend, and amounts to about 0.02 pence per taxpayer or some other tiny number...
Not just America, sadly. Same thing happens here in the UK.
It seems to be easier to look at the person on benefits and ask why they get more than me than to ask why I don't get more than them: a subtle difference in the framing of the question that makes all the difference in where the attention is focused.
That way the top tiers can keep the attention off their practices and on whichever slice of the population they feel like vilifying at the time.
...at every turn we see top executives abdicating all responsibility and deflecting blame to their underlings when things go wrong.
Trump is the absolute epitome of that, now going so far as to blame Joe Biden for the state of the country he is supposed to be running! What staggers me is just how few people seem to either see it or be willing to change it.
Unfortunately we have our own mini-Trump here, along with a cabinet of people who are mostly well out of their depth for whatever office they've been assigned. Johnson may well be more eloquent and well-read than Trump, but it just makes him more adept at avoiding answers or taking responsibility.Not just America, sadly. Same thing happens here in the UK.
That's discouraging. I can understand the U.S. descending into a pit of near-fascist conservatism, but I had hoped the U.K. would be more stable.
Jaw-drop indeed. The man simply cannot fathom the possibility that someone is smarter and more capable than he. Previously his hubris and vast stupidity left only a string of failed businesses. Now it leaves behind hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
Jaw-drop indeed. The man simply cannot fathom the possibility that someone is smarter and more capable than he. Previously his hubris and vast stupidity left only a string of failed businesses. Now it leaves behind hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
Johnson may well be more eloquent and well-read than Trump, but it just makes him more adept at avoiding answers or taking responsibility.
The levels of corruption and self-interest are off the scale
and we have another 4 years before we can vote them out
I'm seriously considering a move to somewhere saner...
He thinks he can set the timeline, as if giving them a tight deadline will motivate them to find a vaccine faster. It's probably both.
Unfortunately Johnson comes from that long line of privately educated individuals who think that a good basis in classics and Latin serves to make him an intellectual and an effective leader.
One characteristic Johnson does share with Trump is the total abdication of responsibility and a propensity to lie about things that he said, saying he never said them when they are there on the record, and gaslighting the population.
Under the new system you cannot come to live in the UK unless you have a job lined up over a certain salary threshold.
They will of course use a 'yes' response to support their position.
Just yesterday Johnson crowed about how the Conservative government were getting things done while the Labour opposition carped from the sidelines. Um, Boris, that is literally how this parliamentary democracy that we have had for centuries is supposed to work!
QuoteI'm seriously considering a move to somewhere saner...Ditto.
Now that you mention it, I have heard of what I can only describe as the Eton cabal in U.K. government.
Incidentally, it was this sort of elitism that the American system was rather meant to overcome: the "bred for leadership" estate. Sadly it didn't actually happen until the populist surge in the 1820 and 1824 election. Prior to that, elected individual offices were dominated by an inner circle comprising the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, all generally considered upper-class. Except it ultimately gave us President Andrew Jackson, who didn't exactly distinguish himself as a shining example of what to expect from a lay populist.
Indeed. I read the U.K. Supreme Court opinion on PM Johnson's failed attempt to persuade Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament in order to delay a key Brexit vote. Even couched in formal legal language, it was pretty amusing to see the noble Justices dress down Mr Johnson for his transparent deception.
This sounds like a hastily-conceived step to ensure that entrants contribute to the economy instead of draw from it.
Maybe he can blame Joe Biden for failing to solve his problems.
So much for my plans to move the U.K. to escape the American Republicans. Canada, anyone? I hear Vancouver is a nice place.
This arrangement is what partly tied Pres. Obama's attempts to restructure the financial industry after the crash of 2008. The collective power of the U.S. industrial oligarchy outstrips the power of its government.Yes, well. At the start of the crisis we had people here in the UK panic buying toilet rolls and clearing the shelves of dry goods. One of our beloved tabloids (I think it was the Daily Mail) printed a photo of these empty shelves, claiming that this was what life would be like under Corbyn.
My über-conservative father-in-law texted, at the beginning of the BLM demonstrations, "Welcome to Biden's America." People who would otherwise be smart are literally falling for the rhetoric that the state of the country under Trump -- now, today -- is what it's going to be in a Biden administration. I frankly can't understand how people can be so uncritically susceptible to that sort of nonsense.
So much for my plans to move the U.K. to escape the American Republicans. Canada, anyone? I hear Vancouver is a nice place.
There's always this sunny little island continent Down Under.
The man in charge of education in our country has no experience whatsoever working in the field of education. If that isn't being promoted above your capability I don't know what is.
I think I've learned more American history from this thread than anywhere else. I'll have to look up Andrew Jackson now...
The most jaw-dropping thing about that whole business was that Johnson seemed to genuinely think we would not all see through it.
That's precisely what it is.
The sting of it all is that the lockdown and the pandemic itself have shown that it is precisely these low-income workers we actually depend on to keep our hospitals running, our supermarkets stocked and our homes and streets free of huge mountains of rubbish. If these jobs are having a net drain on the economy then for god's sake increase their pay and let them do those jobs AND live without needing benefits. The whole idea of a living wage is that if you have it you can live without needing additional state support, but that clearly is not actually working.
How could it not when they want both seamless trade across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border AND an EU/UK customs border? Ireland was always going to be the biggest stumbling block in the whole Brexit mess.
The man in charge of education in our country has no experience whatsoever working in the field of education. If that isn't being promoted above your capability I don't know what is.
Oooh, are we going to debate who has the worst cabinet? Have you followed our Attorney General lately?
QuoteI think I've learned more American history from this thread than anywhere else. I'll have to look up Andrew Jackson now...
You can start by correcting my dates: Jackson was elected in 1828. The 1824 election sticks out because it was notorious for the Corrupt Bargain that put John Adams' son in the White House. Overall, Jackson is considered a reasonably successful President. In the interests of maintaining cordiality in this thread, we can omit discussing the Battle of New Orleans.
Or, come to that, our Secretary of Education...
When his Indian removal policy was ruled against by the Supreme Court, his response was to ask if the Supreme Court had an army. He did, and his policy ruled. Small wonder he's Fearless Leader's favourite.
Or, come to that, our Secretary of Education...
Yeah...
[Shakes head in disgust]
Not just America, sadly. Same thing happens here in the UK.
That's discouraging. I can understand the U.S. descending into a pit of near-fascist conservatism, but I had hoped the U.K. would be more stable.QuoteIt seems to be easier to look at the person on benefits and ask why they get more than me than to ask why I don't get more than them: a subtle difference in the framing of the question that makes all the difference in where the attention is focused.
And I think there's more to the comparative approach. It seems to be human nature to want to achieve priority, not matter how slight and no matter how much the absolute values. It's not enough for me to be rich; you must be poor. It's not enough for me to be powerful; you must be weak. It's not enough for me to succeed; you must fail. Endemic to American capitalism is the notion that one's success must come at the cost of another person's failure, and that person's failure is because of his laziness or some other moral flaw.
QuoteThat way the top tiers can keep the attention off their practices and on whichever slice of the population they feel like vilifying at the time.
In the specific terms of labor, the top tiers freely admit trying to reduce their labor costs. This means paying American workers as little as they can get away with and making unions politically unpalatable. It means offshoring to cheaper labor markets. It means automation. Every single economic indicator I can imagine points to conscious, deliberate effort on the part of upper management to reduce the amount of money the combined American labor force will earn, if only as a consequence of minimizing the money it will spend on labor overall. Yet for some reason the story is that people can't find jobs because they're too focused on smashed avocado and social justice, or because jobs are being taken by scary illegally-resident minorities.
Quote...at every turn we see top executives abdicating all responsibility and deflecting blame to their underlings when things go wrong.
And getting away with it, because most corporations are actually run by boards of directors to whom the CEO reports. And there is a cadre of upper-level business leaders in the U.S., all of whom sit on each other's boards. No CEO is going to be held meaningfully accountable by a board composed of CEOs from other companies on whose boards he sits. Nothing less than a catastrophe will unseat a CEO, and in most cases the exit arrangements for these positions pretty much set you up for life even in the event of gross malfeasance. This arrangement is what partly tied Pres. Obama's attempts to restructure the financial industry after the crash of 2008. The collective power of the U.S. industrial oligarchy outstrips the power of its government.
The Dodd-Frank Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act attempted to bring more actual accountability into the corporate boardroom and executive office suites, but naturally the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress (in Pres. Trump's early term) have largely eviscerated those measures. And because of the unique structure of the U.S. executive branch, Pres. Trump can largely forestall enforcement of any provisions that remain.
QuoteTrump is the absolute epitome of that, now going so far as to blame Joe Biden for the state of the country he is supposed to be running! What staggers me is just how few people seem to either see it or be willing to change it.
My über-conservative father-in-law texted, at the beginning of the BLM demonstrations, "Welcome to Biden's America." People who would otherwise be smart are literally falling for the rhetoric that the state of the country under Trump -- now, today -- is what it's going to be in a Biden administration. I frankly can't understand how people can be so uncritically susceptible to that sort of nonsense.
And yes, the campaign seems to be ramping up the rhetoric, criticizing Joe Biden's lackluster response to the coronavirus crisis. What, literally, was he supposed to do? He holds no elected office. He has no power to order or bring about a single thing. Literally all he can do is advocate action, which his campaign is certainly doing, and illustrate how he will handle the crisis differently when and if he does have the power to do anything. This reminds me of when people tried to blame Obama for not taking charge more forcefully on 9/11.
I'm fully convinced that rank-and-file political advocacy in the United States really rises no higher than, say, sports fandom. People cheer for the Republicans or the Democrats with no more thought and no less fervor than cheering for Manchester United or the Sacramento Piggers. You want your team to win because victory is sweet, not because there's actually a future at stake. Americans in general don't ever face existential (or even serious) crises, and so political contests aren't considered to matter, because everything in America will always be okay for us no matter what. I hold out hope that the pandemic will convince some people that these decisions matter. But it's bleak hope.
Johnson may well be more eloquent and well-read than Trump, but it just makes him more adept at avoiding answers or taking responsibility.
Unfortunately Johnson comes from that long line of privately educated individuals who think that a good basis in classics and Latin serves to make him an intellectual and an effective leader. He does at least have the common sense to realise that following science is a good idea during a pandemic. Unfortunately he doesn't know which science to follow and his cabinet demonstrate often they do not actually understand how science works. One minister complained recently that advice kept changing when it was supposed to be following the science, because how can the science keep changing. Scientist collectively across the nation facepalmed at that point...
One characteristic Johnson does share with Trump is the total abdication of responsibility and a propensity to lie about things that he said, saying he never said them when they are there on the record, and gaslighting the population. Witness his latest assertion that the EU Withdrawal Agreement was signed in haste and had some unsatisfactory bits in it. The current 'unsatisfactory bit' concerns Northern Ireland, which was the bit he said he had solved to get an 'oven ready' Withdrawal Agreement on the back of which he fought and won a General Election last year.
QuoteThe levels of corruption and self-interest are off the scale
I can't for the life of me figure out how we have a cabinet in which children of immigrants are championing a new immigration system they freely admit would have blocked their own parents from entering the country had it existed back then.
The sting of it all is that the lockdown and the pandemic itself have shown that it is precisely these low-income workers we actually depend on to keep our hospitals running, our supermarkets stocked and our homes and streets free of huge mountains of rubbish. If these jobs are having a net drain on the economy then for god's sake increase their pay and let them do those jobs AND live without needing benefits. The whole idea of a living wage is that if you have it you can live without needing additional state support, but that clearly is not actually working.
At a certain point the marketing of the American capitalist paradise (and to whatever extent the U.K. shares it) simply doesn't remain convincing. CEOs are not invariably essential and therefore should not grow rich as kings on the fat salaries they deserve. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, but a robust economy means that all roles have intrinsic worth. The proletariat are not what's draining the system.
Again, Sanders is right: the system is rigged. Don't like your job? Well, get a better one! Hard to do, when the quality of jobs and the compensation is essentially controlled by executive fiat. Get more education! In the U.S. that means literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that becomes payable the day you graduate. The substantial pay rise you may have qualified for by higher education simply becomes interest on loans paid to the One Percent. I got rich, and so can you! Not when one's wealth is inherited, and maintained by gaming financial systems that few others can participate in. We contribute the most to the economy through our wealth! Our local newspaper examined local businesses that received state aid to maintain payroll and discovered a substantial number of the recipient companies had no employees; their sole proprietors received "payroll assistance" simply to maintain their standard of living. Yet individual citizens received a mere one-time pittance to sustain them.
When his Indian removal policy was ruled against by the Supreme Court, his response was to ask if the Supreme Court had an army. He did, and his policy ruled. Small wonder he's Fearless Leader's favourite.
Spoken like an ex-general. Except that unlike our Dear Leader, Mr Jackson managed to serve with distinction in the military.
This reminds me of when people tried to blame Obama for not taking charge more forcefully on 9/11.
With respect, was that actually a thing? I got the impression it was a satire.
Do you think this sort of thinking occurs in the USA too? Or is it simply that the USAnian view of capitalism is inherently predatory?
Also, would you care to comment on how this seemingly win-at-all-costs attitude meshes with well-known American courtesy and hospitality?
Interestingly, this has started happening in Australia in the last few months. The latest case was just last week, when three senior figures at mining giant Rio Tinto had to fall on their swords after the company was found to have destroyed an indigenous site of tremendous cultural value.
With respect, was that actually a thing? I got the impression it was a satire.
And yet there seem to be many more opportunities to get involved in politics in the USA, especially at the local level, than just about anywhere in the world.
With respect I wouldn't automatically reject someone with those sorts of qualifications.
To be fair I don't see this as a show-stopper. It would presumably be fairly easy to suggest that the nation's circumstances have changed from all those decades ago, and what would have been possible back then isn't possible now.
Normally I would write that off as campaign rhetoric, or a joking reference. But as President Trump seems to have no correct idea what authority he has, we have to consider he might be serious.Especially since he likes to use 'jokes' as a way to backtrack if outrage crops up, testing the waters, from what I've seen.
Unfortunately Johnson comes from that long line of privately educated individuals who think that a good basis in classics and Latin serves to make him an intellectual and an effective leader. He does at least have the common sense to realise that following science is a good idea during a pandemic. Unfortunately he doesn't know which science to follow and his cabinet demonstrate often they do not actually understand how science works. One minister complained recently that advice kept changing when it was supposed to be following the science, because how can the science keep changing. Scientist collectively across the nation facepalmed at that point...
With respect I wouldn't automatically reject someone with those sorts of qualifications.
Having said that, I've read of Johnson being described as a clever man who pretends he's an idiot, while Trump is an idiot pretending he's a clever man. I've also read an article (can't find it online) about Johnson by a journalist who described Johnson being invited to speak on a particular topic at some expensive dinner, turning up late, with no notes, and bumbling into an impromptu speech complete off-topic, yet somehow holding the audience spellbound. The journalist then described attending another dinner months later at which Johnson was invited to speak on some other topic. He turned up late, with no notes, and bumbled into an impromptu speech which happened to be identical to the one he'd given before, and again somehow held the audience spellbound. He seems to be incredibly charismatic, but in the game of Illuminati I'm sure he'd be the manifestation of the Discordian Society...
QuoteThe levels of corruption and self-interest are off the scale
I can't for the life of me figure out how we have a cabinet in which children of immigrants are championing a new immigration system they freely admit would have blocked their own parents from entering the country had it existed back then.
In my experience the latter is endangered, if not outright extinct, at least in terms of how many Americans deal with strangers on a daily basis. I guess the kids today are talking about the Karen factor -- the stereotype of the farcically entitled, rude individualist. I think we recognize that as a straw woman, but in fact that sentiment is growing. "I got mine, and you're on your own" seems to be taking hold.
I personally tend to think the idea of "Karen" is in part intended to make a lot of gatekeeping perceived as women's fault.
Does he give a f**k about anybody, other than himself?
Does he give a f**k about anybody, other than himself?
Does he give a f**k about anybody, other than himself?
Wouldn't it be perfect Karma if the voters hat are infected and incapable of voting as a result of this covidiotic event, were the missing votes that cost him the election?
From this side of the pond, and going by the news reports and social media, I get the impression that most of them just accept that there will be "collateral damage", as long as they can keep Trump in office, and pushing through more right-wing policies. As I recall, he bragged that he could shoot someone on Times Square and not lose votes and I'm afraid that has, in a way, come true.Wouldn't it be perfect Karma if the voters hat are infected and incapable of voting as a result of this covidiotic event, were the missing votes that cost him the election?
That's what I don't get about Trump's handling of COVID-19. How does he come out of this looking like a good leader who should be elected to a second term? He can't even hold onto his base if they (or their loved ones) start dying.
He could have taken charge, followed the advice of experts, and had a much better result that might have even won over a few voters from the other side. Instead he downplays the virus and politicizes the only ways of getting control over it, and the death count sores. This seems like more than just Trump being a Dunning-Kruger idiot who is out of his depth, it looks like an intentional strategy that doesn't make sense unless you assume that death & societal chaos is what he wants.I don't think it's what Trump himself wants, but looking behind the scenes there is, or has been, a group of people such as Bannon and Miller, and a lot of "influencers" who have stated openly that they want to disrupt or destroy western societies/cultures. Trump is a useful front for them, and the same applies over here in the UK, where Dominic Cummings (a friend of Bannon's) is pretty much the power behind the clown facade of Boris Johnson.
So much for my plans to move the U.K. to escape the American Republicans. Canada, anyone? I hear Vancouver is a nice place.
There's always this sunny little island continent Down Under.
We may be descendants of white outcasts from England, but they threw us into a wonderful place in Australia. They consigned us to heaven, and they stayed in hell!― Midget Farrelly, “Nothing to Hide – The History of Swimwear” TV2 (New Zealand) 27 Sep 1996 8:30pm
If only there was some way we could have foreseen his actions and his desperate need to de-legitimise any outcome unfavourable to him. I mean, it's not like he was going on about rigged election systems back in 2016 or anything....
Wouldn't it be perfect Karma if the voters hat are infected and incapable of voting as a result of this covidiotic event, were the missing votes that cost him the election?
Now he has the full power of the Presidency and the backing of his party to make good on his rants.
How does he come out of this looking like a good leader who should be elected to a second term?
...as long as they can keep Trump in office, and pushing through more right-wing policies.
As I recall, he bragged that he could shoot someone on Times Square and not lose votes and I'm afraid that has, in a way, come true.
And soon he will have a solid lock on the Supreme Court who will say whatever he does next is perfectly legal.
And soon he will have a solid lock on the Supreme Court who will say whatever he does next is perfectly legal.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress and the White House, they can change the composition of the Court as was done back during the New Deal. The number of justices on the Court is not presented in Article III, and is instead something Congress can decide. So there are political avenues open, but reasonable Americans need to brace for a 6-3 majority that might be a factor in a contested election.
I passionately believe that at least one of the Republican justices has done enough to merit removal from office. It's an open secret in DC circles that access to Clarence Thomas is essentially being sold by his wife.
It's exactly the same process as removing a President. The clause in the Constitution that lists who may be impeached and for what offenses applies identically to the President, Vice President, and all other federal civil officers. That latter category comprises all judges whose jurisdiction is in the federal court system established by Congress under Article III.
It's also helped that Canberra has experienced so little direct effect from the virus - it's nearly 11 weeks since the last case was recorded, a few months since the last death - and the preventive measures are pretty mild. Here's hoping we can keep this up until a vaccine arrives.
That's looking like an attractive refuge as we slowly become Amerika. My state alone recorded nearly 1,200 new cases just today. My brother's eldest daughter turned 13 today. I talked to him recently. They're coping by doing a lot of outdoor activities that lets them keep distance.
Over in the Kids say the darnedest things thread, Jay said:It's also helped that Canberra has experienced so little direct effect from the virus - it's nearly 11 weeks since the last case was recorded, a few months since the last death - and the preventive measures are pretty mild. Here's hoping we can keep this up until a vaccine arrives.
That's looking like an attractive refuge as we slowly become Amerika. My state alone recorded nearly 1,200 new cases just today. My brother's eldest daughter turned 13 today. I talked to him recently. They're coping by doing a lot of outdoor activities that lets them keep distance.
Replying here to avoid derailing the other thread further.
It's interesting to compare the US response to that just north in Canada.
Here in Ontario, Canada there is a lot of concern over 400+ cases a day, and officials are actually doing something about it. The most interesting thing is Premier Ford, who when elected was compared a lot to Trump (he got only 40% of the vote, and was deeply unpopular). However, unlike Trump he took the pandemic seriously and has (mostly) redeemed himself in that area. He's even called anti-maskers idiots.
At all levels, politicians have been listening to domain experts and implementing their advice, including the opposition parties at all levels. There has been some fighting of late, particularly with the federal Conservative party, to the point that a fall election is a possibility, though. Looks like we will be spared that, fortunately.
There was an article in the Toronto Star newspaper (well, online) that I read recently about a person's experience crossing the Canada/US border in both directions (he's a dual citizen with a home in the US, but apparently needed to get belongings from Canada). The contrast was marked: going into Canada the single agent was masked, and he was asked many question about COVID-19. He only needed to remove his mask briefly to verify his identity. Once in Canada, he was required to self-isolate for 14 days - and they followed up on that not only with automated calls, but with a live person calling to check.
By contrast, on returning to the US, there were multiple border agents, none of whom were masked, and their main concern was about the goods he was bringing into the country. I don't recall if the article mentioned any self-isolation requirement; I suspect not.
This, in a nutshell, is why Canada, while not good, is not in the alarming state the US is - and personally, I lay most of the blame for that on Trump (who wants the border reopened soon - most Canadians, I believe, most emphatically do not).
Aside: My older son is in Halifax, Nova Scotia; they're nearly back to normal. It's a nice city, if you are seriously looking to emigrate that would be a good place to consider.
Let the bidding war for Jay's relocation city begin...!
Wildlife Refuge Manager (http://"https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/579013400")QuoteYes You may qualify for reimbursement of relocation expenses in accordance with agency policy.
This position is part of the Midway Atoll NWRS responsible for a full range of significant scientific and non-scientific refuge issues affecting or related to managing refuge lands; resolves operational and administrative problems for which current information is inconclusive or lacking altogether; develops innovative solutions to complex resource and land management issues that have controversial environmental impact and involve conflicting or unclear law and policy.
;D
Let the bidding war for Jay's relocation city begin...!
Jay should just be his own country, like the Vatican. That way no one will fight over who gets to have him. ;)
https://twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1309347252402491392?s=21His last brain cell must have died of loneliness.
What?
Nonetheless, as much fun as it is to poke at this side of him, and by All is it fun, it shouldn't distract from the vile things he is doing and encouraging and allowing to happen.
Also, "don't worry about the new Supreme Court appointment" is honestly terrible advice.
[T]here's a lot of speculation that it would be used to override the will of the people come November.
I've heard serious discussion in some circles about tertiary syphilis.
A lot of his speech, outside of cases where he's reading material written for him, is very much stream of consciousness. And he doesn't have much of that; he also has no focus and no discipline.
He is just not qualified for any leadership role in so many ways...
So many people in the US don't just seem to realize the damage he's done to the country, especially internationally...
Even in Canada, which had a good relationship with the country up to now, the majority of the people view the country with suspicion.
There is that, but he's too much of a wannabe autocrat for it to be the whole thing. He's done plenty of things on his lonesome with his speeches, his tweets, and his executive orders.Nonetheless, as much fun as it is to poke at this side of him, and by All is it fun, it shouldn't distract from the vile things he is doing and encouraging and allowing to happen.
And the vile things being done in relative secrecy by the Republican-controlled machinery of government while the media remains obsessed with Donald Trump. At one time I believed that's why they nominated George W. Bush. He was an incompetent buffoon with an electable pedigree. His job was to distract attention away from Dick Cheney, who was more in charge of the White House, and from the Republicans elsewhere in government who would then be free to enact policy with the media's eye focused on Bush.
Also, "don't worry about the new Supreme Court appointment" is honestly terrible advice. Most Americans may not care, but that's because most Americans aren't really thinking about how important a Supreme Court justice is to their daily lives. Keeping this woman out of the Supreme Court isn't just partisan bickering; the Supreme Court would, with a 6-3 Republican majority, eliminate vast swathes of rights from the American people, and there's a lot of speculation that it would be used to override the will of the people come November.
Make no mistake, Donald J. Trump has done more damage to America and Americans than any other single person in recent memory. And he does it loudly, publicly, and often rudely and childishly.
I just mean that there is much more happening behind the scenes, and it has been happening for a decade at least. It may not have been their intent to nominate such a horror-clown, but one of the ways the idiot is useful to Republicans is by distracting the media. Far away from the feeding frenzy that covers Trump tweets and such, others in government can do the legwork of quietly dismantling the institutions and rights that favor the common men and women.
Make no mistake, Donald J. Trump has done more damage to America and Americans than any other single person in recent memory. And he does it loudly, publicly, and often rudely and childishly.
I just mean that there is much more happening behind the scenes, and it has been happening for a decade at least. It may not have been their intent to nominate such a horror-clown, but one of the ways the idiot is useful to Republicans is by distracting the media. Far away from the feeding frenzy that covers Trump tweets and such, others in government can do the legwork of quietly dismantling the institutions and rights that favor the common men and women.
Would it be fair to say things have been leading to this since at least the 1990s, if not since Nixon? It seems to me like ever since Watergate the Republicans have been fighting dirty and doing whatever it took to win, and then it went into overdrive when Bill Clinton took office. And Fox News sure hasn't been helping to improve anything.
...President Trump is both the epitome and the symptom of America's steady loss of prestige and power. The symptom, because this started long before the Trump Presidency. Although he has certainly accelerated it, it is by no means valid to lay it all at his feet, or even just to include the circle of enablers around him. This has been happening for many years, probably since the late 1980s or early 1990s. And the people responsible for it have been the increasingly blurry combination of U.S. big business and business-friendly politicians.
Donald Trump is the epitome of it because the U.S. is just doing what Donald Trump has done: play games with brand name recognition in order to squander and plunder it for the benefit of an otherwise indifferent elite. While the average American doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about the country, I'm convinced that the average American business mogul or high-ranking politician (if there's even a difference anymore) doesn't care about anything idealist or institutional about any country. America, Russia, the United Kingdom -- they're all just the same. As long as there's a capitalist economic system, an exploitable labor force, and a pushover government, it's all just the same to them. "America" is a just a brand they're going to plunder until the resources are used up. Then they'll move on.
The difference, of course, is that the populations of other countries seem to catch this before it becomes a chronic problem and reign it in. But again, the marketing of the American Dream has been so wildly successful that we'll stand on the deck of the sinking ship with our hands over our hearts to the tune of "Stars and Stripes Forever" and listen to people tell us the water lapping around our ankles is just a socialist conspiracy theory.
The Democratic Party would be better off concentrating on simply getting as many people out to vote as possible, even if it means getting them to queue up to vote on the day, and educating people to make sure they vote for the House and Senate, and for whatever state elections are happening. Winning the Presidency would be good, but the Dems need to win the Senate as well, and winning control of any state governments up for grabs would be good too. If you want to get democracy back into the USA, you're going to have to start from the bottom as well as from the top.It's only through the ballot box that real change can be achieved. However, you now have to take into account just how effective well-targeted propaganda can be, esepecially with the power of modern technology behind it. UK's C4 has released an expose of Cambridge Analytica and their role in the US election. Effectively a campaign of voter suppression via highly targeted social media ads (the same Cambridge Analytica who were so influential in the Brexit referendum).
Would it be fair to say things have been leading to this since at least the 1990s, if not since Nixon?
And Fox News sure hasn't been helping to improve anything.
So what is the end-game for them? Are they just content to accumulate what wealth they can through non-productive means, or do they have thoughts of making money through production and sale of goods and services?
UK's C4 has released an expose of Cambridge Analytica and their role in the US election. Effectively a campaign of voter suppression via highly targeted social media ads (the same Cambridge Analytica who were so influential in the Brexit referendum).
I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important.
It's worth pointing out -- and Gillianren can correct my colonial history recollection, if needed -- but I believe Canada is one of the few countries that has beaten the U.S. militarily. :P
But my concern is that the Democrats have for too long been fighting tactically rather than strategically - that there are times when you concede a battle in order to use your resources more carefully. Consider that the shocks from the release of the Woodward book are completely forgotten, even though they're only a couple of weeks in the past. Any expectation that the revelations in the book might damage Trump's reputation are long gone. And it'll be the same with the Supreme Court nomination.
The Democratic Party would be better off concentrating on simply getting as many people out to vote as possible, even if it means getting them to queue up to vote on the day, and educating people to make sure they vote for the House and Senate, and for whatever state elections are happening. Winning the Presidency would be good, but the Dems need to win the Senate as well, and winning control of any state governments up for grabs would be good too. If you want to get democracy back into the USA, you're going to have to start from the bottom as well as from the top.
However, you now have to take into account just how effective well-targeted propaganda can be, esepecially with the power of modern technology behind it. UK's C4 has released an expose of Cambridge Analytica and their role in the US election. Effectively a campaign of voter suppression via highly targeted social media ads (the same Cambridge Analytica who were so influential in the Brexit referendum).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/28/trump-2016-campaign-targeted-35m-black-americans-to-deter-them-from-voting
I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important.
I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through the article in the New York Times. It's very dense reading, with lots of facts and figures. And you're right: in two weeks we'll have forgotten all about it.
If the evidence is to be believed, then it's almost certain that President Trump has committed tax fraud. But a great deal of what I've read so far describes common practices in American business to reduce tax liability. It's part and parcel of the larger problem that much American wealth is held in the private funds of corporations who all pay little or no tax. The U.S. Tax Code is purposely byzantine in order to allow for such maneuvers, although the rank and file American is generally unable to take advantage of them. The Trump tax "cut" restructured this further to shift the tax burden: my rental properties saw a net increase in their business tax liability as the result of newly disallowed deductions and limits on expenses while deficit-funding a large tax break for big businesses so they could "create jobs." (Few used it for that; as has been explained, they used the cash infusion to buy back their own stock and artificially inflate its prices.)
I don't think the fight against a Supreme Court Justice is against its reputation.
I think it is literally attempting to block an appointment. ... And Trump has explicitly said this is to ensure that he will be able to challenge the election and win. Preventing that is really, really important. This isn't about persuading voters; this is about the act of governing the country.
With the voter suppression permitted by the Supreme Court already, allowing this woman on the Supreme Court is just allowing it to be impossible to start from the bottom.
And another scary thing to keep you up at night is that the national security risk Trump posed won't go away when he is out of office. He knows secrets, and he will sell them in a flat second if someone offers him money.
Well, to quote Dana Bash on CNN... that debate was a shit show.
When asked to condemn white supremacist groups, Trump tells them to "stand back and stand by". WTF!
"We've placed each contestant in his own soundproof booth..."
I'm hoping the Vice Presidential debate exhibits a little more decorum and substance. And I'm stoked it's going to take place a little over 1,000 meters from my house, in a hall I've performed in many times.
Yeah, I expect the Vice Presidential debate to be more civilized. Kamala is going to wipe the floor with Mike Pence though.
Is that something you would have attended if not for the whole COVID-19 social distancing thing?
It helped that the candidates and moderator were intelligent and, you know, sane.
Maybe he really is trying to start another civil war.
I've already seen someone say that they're sure Nancy Pelosi's taxes would prove she's just as bad.
I've already seen someone say that they're sure Nancy Pelosi's taxes would prove she's just as bad.
To be honest, it doesn't matter because very few actually inspire me. I think Biden is a terrible choice but at least he is not Trump. I seem to differ from a lot of people with my opinion that the DNC is falling into the same old trap: they are trying to fight asymmetric warfare with the last war's tactics. It didn't work with Hillary Clinton, and it won't work with Joe Biden.
It helped that the candidates and moderator were intelligent and, you know, sane.
It has been reported that the President spent very little time preparing for the debate. I gather his plan all along was to drag Biden down to his level and then flog him with experience. I don't think Pres. Trump had the slightest delusion that he would win the debate according to the ground rules. He claimed earlier that Chris Wallace would go easy on Biden and tough on him. You know -- Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor. If he's already making excuses for losing, then he probably had no interest in preparing to win. His plan seems to have been to stump for ninety minutes in his solitary idiom, the rules and format be damned.
...Our President egging on fringe radicals is not someplace I thought we'd be. Maybe he really is trying to start another civil war.
I've already seen someone say that they're sure Nancy Pelosi's taxes would prove she's just as bad.
To be honest, it doesn't matter because very few actually inspire me. I think Biden is a terrible choice but at least he is not Trump. I seem to differ from a lot of people with my opinion that the DNC is falling into the same old trap: they are trying to fight asymmetric warfare with the last war's tactics. It didn't work with Hillary Clinton, and it won't work with Joe Biden.
I would have loved to see someone like Pete Buttigieg go against him. When he would go against Trump, he wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight.
No, despite being under-informed on all the significant US politicians, my opinion is they are all just politicians like all politicians around the world: in it for themselves, and corrupt as all hell.
The softest question of the whole evening--not that I watched the debate, for reasons--was "do you oppose white supremacy?" And Trump couldn't give the right answer.
I wonder if he's following the Julius Caesar playbook - while he's President he can't be indicted.
I gather his plan all along was to drag Biden down to his level and then flog him with experience.
Breaking news his he and Melania have tested positive for Covid.
Breaking news his he and Melania have tested positive for Covid.
Donald, please, please, please don't die of coronavirus and prevent the world from watching your soon to be bankrupted again, racist, white-supremacist supporting, corrupt ass dying in prison.
I'm no expert, but I think that if Big Orange kicked the bucket then the Reps can put a person of their choosing on the ballot paper. It'll be messy, no matter what the outcome.Breaking news his he and Melania have tested positive for Covid.
Donald, please, please, please don't die of coronavirus and prevent the world from watching your soon to be bankrupted again, racist, white-supremacist supporting, corrupt ass dying in prison.
But if it happened, Pence gets sworn in as President, yes? Even if Trump were to die between the election and the inauguration?
What about who appears on the ballot papers if Trump dies before the election?
But if it happened, Pence gets sworn in as President, yes? Even if Trump were to die between the election and the inauguration?
What about who appears on the ballot papers if Trump dies before the election?
Democratic primary voters chose Biden over everyone else, not the DNC.
Democratic primary voters chose Biden over everyone else, not the DNC.
Thank you--this is a thing that deeply irritates me. The DNC can't make people run, and it can't keep people from running. And it can't force votes. In the end, Biden got more primary votes, and that's what mattered.
Democratic primary voters chose Biden over everyone else, not the DNC.
Thank you--this is a thing that deeply irritates me. The DNC can't make people run, and it can't keep people from running. And it can't force votes. In the end, Biden got more primary votes, and that's what mattered.
Yeah, that irritates me too. I tried to explain it to some Bernie Sanders supporters on Twitter the other day, but I'm a Canadian, so what do I know?
Thank you--this is a thing that deeply irritates me.
Oh God. Not to paint with a broad brush, but the people who tend to be the most aggressively ignorant of how the process works are Berniebros. It is a reliable barometer. Even the most oxy-addled redneck redhat MAGAt understands that you win by actually showing up at the polls, not by tweeting polemics from your basement.
She lived in a state where they literally did not count write-in votes, which is true of a lot of states in the general Presidential election.
I should probably add that, my cousin being a Secret Service agent, the President's latest publicity stunt makes me viscerally angry. Donald J. Trump has absolutely no respect for any life but his own.
I should probably add that, my cousin being a Secret Service agent, the President's latest publicity stunt makes me viscerally angry. Donald J. Trump has absolutely no respect for any life but his own.Went looking for this, and I agree it's an unconscionable disregard for the safety and well-being of others. Thing is, I don't think Trump is even capable of considering others, not even intellectually. Everything has been all about him from the beginning.
I should probably add that, my cousin being a Secret Service agent, the President's latest publicity stunt makes me viscerally angry. Donald J. Trump has absolutely no respect for any life but his own.
Trump has been eager to return home and hates the image of himself at the hospital, according to people familiar with his mood.
However, The Washington Post reported Sunday that a growing number of Secret Service agents have been concerned about the president’s seeming indifference to the health risks they face when traveling with him in public, and a few reacted with outrage to the trip, asking how Trump’s desire to be seen outside of his hospital suite justified the jeopardy to agents protecting the president.
...
Trump had said he was bored in the hospital, advisers said. He wanted to show strength after his chief of staff Mark Meadows suggested that he was not doing well as he fought the virus, according to campaign and White House officials.
From CBC (Canada):Quote from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-positive-covid-19-oct4-1.5749905Trump has been eager to return home and hates the image of himself at the hospital, according to people familiar with his mood.
From the National Post (also Canada, a conservative news outlet that is the closest thing Canada has to news favourable to Trump):Quote from: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-makes-surprise-outing-from-hospital-to-greet-supportersHowever, The Washington Post reported Sunday that a growing number of Secret Service agents have been concerned about the president’s seeming indifference to the health risks they face when traveling with him in public, and a few reacted with outrage to the trip, asking how Trump’s desire to be seen outside of his hospital suite justified the jeopardy to agents protecting the president.
...
Trump had said he was bored in the hospital, advisers said. He wanted to show strength after his chief of staff Mark Meadows suggested that he was not doing well as he fought the virus, according to campaign and White House officials.
So it's because he's bored, and wants to show his strength. The guy is ... well, I don't have words.
There is growing skepticism that he actually had the disease.You Americans, eh? You'd never get a British leader pulling a stunt like that.
The Congressman representing my district was one of the first government leaders to have the disease, back in February or March. He's young and fit, with no comorbidities. Two months later he gave interviews saying he still could not shake the cough and fatigue. He was in the hospital for well over a week and lost something like 15 pounds.
But yes, sending the message that COVID-19 really is nothing to fear is just about the worst thing a President could say right now.
Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!!
I suspect it's Trump pushing for this, and as usual he doesn't pay any attention to experts.
Another point is that the medications listed for the President's treatment have side affects that include an impairment of cognitive function...Not that there was much cognitive function on display there to begin with in the Very Stable Genius.
Not that there was much cognitive function on display there to begin with in the Very Stable Genius.
Edit to add: On the other hand, there's a long tradition of being coy or otherwise ... creative ... with the truth in regards to Presidential medical issues.
Not that there was much cognitive function on display there to begin with in the Very Stable Genius.
I wonder if that would qualify the meds as placebos, then. ;D
He's back at the White House, doing a balcony appearance and gasping like a fish out of water. My guess is that he ordered his doctors to pump him full of whatever would keep him vertical just so he could boast his strength at beating the disease. Didn't PM Boris Johnson have a period of reasonably good health a few days after initial treatment, and then relapse so hard he had to be placed in intensive care?
There is growing skepticism that he actually had the disease.You Americans, eh? You'd never get a British leader pulling a stunt like that.
The Congressman representing my district was one of the first government leaders to have the disease, back in February or March. He's young and fit, with no comorbidities. Two months later he gave interviews saying he still could not shake the cough and fatigue. He was in the hospital for well over a week and lost something like 15 pounds.
But yes, sending the message that COVID-19 really is nothing to fear is just about the worst thing a President could say right now.
Oh. Hold on. tho'....?
So Trump now thinks the COVID-19 tests are maybe not reliable because someone tested negative repeatedly then their latest test was positive. Clearly there can be no other explanation for this....
I don't wish this illness on anyone, but I find myself fervently wishing that Trump does not get it, because if he gets it and recovers can you imagine what his deuded sense of self-importance would make of that?!
Her symptoms were very mild, over in a couple of days.
Yes to the comment about Johnson. The press was full of "he's doing fine" until he crashed and was placed into ICU.
Well, this played out pretty much exactly as I expected it to. I hate being right sometimes.
His whole attitude of how 'he' beat the disease is typical Trump, utterly unable to conceive of the fact that he beat it because he had help from medical experts and medication devised by scientists and doctors. Now he's advising people not to let it dominate them when over 200,000 Americans are dead because of COVID.
I even saw someone tweeting how suspect it was that Trump and his team are getting it and Biden and his cronies are not, even though the reason for that difference is abundantly clear to anyone with half a functioning brain.
I hope America recovers from COVID and Trump, I really do.
...anything good that happens is his achievement alone, anything bad is someone else's fault.
There's no limit to what you can overcome if you have a taxpayer-funded private helicopter to airlift you from the hospital in your taxpayer-funded house to your other taxpayer-funded private hospital suite.
I hope Trump survives if only so there won't be thousands of conspiracy theories about how "the radical left killed Trump with a weaponized Chinese virus". I guess that's coming regardless of whether he survives or not, but it will be worse if he dies.
That $750 he paid in taxes sure went a long way.
Lying that he has it is internally inconsistent with his known lies. He never lies to put himself into a position of weakness, even if it's to boast that he then got out of it.
He's been ignoring basic health precautions all along. Frankly, it's a miracle he didn't get it long since, despite his germophobia.
Those around him are causing the DC statistics--which were mostly getting under control--to spike. It's not just his inner circle, either, though that list is long. It's things like the White House housekeeping staff. It should start appearing in Secret Service agents, too.
Coast Guard aide Jayna McCarron, a member of the White House Military Office, and one of the President's valets also tested positive for the virus on Tuesday. McCarron is part of the crew that safeguards the nuclear "football" containing codes for the US nuclear arsenal. The office is a vital cog in operations that provides communications, food, transportation and valet services at the White House complex. The President's valet, who is also active-duty military, had travelled with the President last week, according to people familiar with the matter.
Just reading some of his tweets, a question:- If Trump was declared insane (and I seriously think he is) what would happen?
Not being familiar with US Presidential affairs, I have to ask if this sort of blatant sales pitch is normal, or something uniquely Trumpian?
Ah, so just someone cashing in on the Trump frenzy :D Well, even though I think it's tacky and tasteless, I have to admire the clever marketing and ability to turn disaster into profit... ;)Not being familiar with US Presidential affairs, I have to ask if this sort of blatant sales pitch is normal, or something uniquely Trumpian?
Trumpian. He doesn't know how to do anything except peddle his name as a brand. However, Snopes confirms that this site has nothing officially to do with the White House or any other office in the U.S. government.
Well, even though I think it's tacky and tasteless,
However, Snopes confirms that this site has nothing officially to do with the White House or any other office in the U.S. government.
So, are we going to see a 'Trump Slump' in the next few days, with him collapsing and requiring a return to hospital?
So, are we going to see a 'Trump Slump' in the next few days, with him collapsing and requiring a return to hospital?Probably not. Trump went to the hospital and got the very best of care and follow-up that few other people will get until they are actually very sick. I don't think we can track Trump's expected course to take during an illness with the average American's
In Harris County, the nation’s third-largest county, which includes Houston, turnout surpassed record numbers set the first day in 2016 five hours before polls closed, according to County Clerk Chris Hollins, a Democrat. By the time polls closed in the evening, 128,186 people had voted in person, nearly double the 67,741 on the first day of 2016. Other counties across the state also reported record-breaking first-day numbers.
...
As of Monday, there were 16.9 million Texans registered to vote, up 300,000 from three weeks ago and up 1.8 million since October 2016, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. In Travis County, which includes Austin, 97% of estimated eligible voters are now registered, according to the voter registrar.
I think it's still the case in my state that you can't even get tested until you have symptoms consistent with the disease. Access to hospitals is rationed; only cases that require hospitalization are accepted. The notion that one can check into a hospital (of any quality) "as a precaution" simply doesn't exist in the U.S. for anyone except the most privileged. But in practical terms, it means that a hospital physician doesn't see an ordinary case until it has progressed already to a life-threatening stage.https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/519533-trump-given-supplemental-oxygen-on-friday-white-house-doctor He was at some point, possibly more than once.
Now I don't recall if we ever learned whether the President's blood oxygen level dipped that low, or whether he was on supplemental oxygen. But those would qualify as hospital cases in my state -- not critical/intensive care, but hospitalization. And he was already in the hospital when and if that occurred. Not just Donald Trump, but other Republicans infected recently have gone all out to downplay the seriousness of the disease and to hold up their privileged cases as somehow typical.
Travis County (Austin and surroundings) is using new polling machines that have a touch-screen interface
...but print a paper ballot that you can examine before depositing it in the ballot reader. The only hitch is the ballot reader doesn't read the human-readable portion, but the barcode printed at the top, so there's still room for shenanigans. But, it's an improvement over the old system where you didn't have any sort of auditing ability.
Now, that 97% means dick if people don't actually get to the polls, but based on the numbers yesterday, I think most of them will.
Vote by mail? In TX, mail-in voting is restricted.
Abbott's one-mail-in-drop-box-per-county shenanigans may very well bite Republicans in the ass, since that will make it harder for their most reliable demographic (home-bound seniors) to vote.
I would giggle for a solid hour if TX broke for Biden - that would be the first D we picked since Carter.
Things can still go very pear-shaped.
We've got our ballots; I think I'm going to sit down with Simon today and teach him how to vote. Because that's how you raise new voters, after all; you normalize voting.
He's also going to learn a bit about how I do my research, which is another valuable thing to know, because it's about evaluating sources and so forth. Something a lot of people clearly cannot do!
But yeah, I wonder if "make voting harder for the elderly during a pandemic" is going to be what turns the tide--I wonder if some of the less hardcore Republican voters are going to realize that their ostensible leadership doesn't care if they live or die so long as there are enough people voting Republican to keep the leaders in power.
We've got our ballots; I think I'm going to sit down with Simon today and teach him how to vote. Because that's how you raise new voters, after all; you normalize voting. Why do I vote in every election? Because I learned as a small child that voting in every election was just what we do. He's also going to learn a bit about how I do my research, which is another valuable thing to know, because it's about evaluating sources and so forth. Something a lot of people clearly cannot do!
But yeah, I wonder if "make voting harder for the elderly during a pandemic" is going to be what turns the tide--I wonder if some of the less hardcore Republican voters are going to realize that their ostensible leadership doesn't care if they live or die so long as there are enough people voting Republican to keep the leaders in power.
Bunnings’ community sausage sizzles returned in Tasmania and the Northern Territory on 11th July 2020 in selected stores. They are also back up and running in selected stores in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia as of 25th July 2020.
Sausage sizzles will return to selected stores in ACT from 3rd October 2020 and in selected NSW stores from 10th October 2020.
In Victoria, we continue to follow the latest government restrictions and guidelines and will look to recommence sausage sizzles when possible.
[A]mazingly, the US Presidential election isn't the only election affected by COVID-19!).
Regardless of who wins the US election, one thing is certain: it will be a victory for the meritocracy.
The meritocracy are the elite, the richest, most privileged of Americans who have a stranglehold on power and wealth.
Like the aristocracy of old they are distant from the rest of the population, often looking down on them, mocking them or exploiting them.
Like the aristocrats they party together, live alongside each other in the same wealthy suburbs and attend the same weddings, even if they supposedly represent different sides of politics...
The meritocracy has rigged the game to suit themselves, getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. Their children dominate entry to the best universities, a pathway to the richest careers ensuring this new royalty shores up its status for another generation.
We've got our ballots; I think I'm going to sit down with Simon today and teach him how to vote. Because that's how you raise new voters, after all; you normalize voting.
Not sure 'meritocracy' is the right word . . .
Aye. Sure, they often claim to be, only getting million dollar loans from their fathers, no biggie, but, yes, most certainly the wrong word.Not sure 'meritocracy' is the right word . . .
Definitely the wrong word.
Manawatu Standard, Monday 19 October 2020, page 10Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II. He has abused the power of his office and denied the legitimacy of his political opponents, shattering the norms that have bound the nation together for generations. He has subsumed the public interest to the profitability of his business and political interests. He has shown a breathtaking disregard for the lives and liberties of Americans. He is a man unworthy of the office he holds.
Views from around the world. These opinions are not necessarily shared by Stuff newspapers.
The New York Times – The case against Donald Trump
The editorial board does not lightly indict a duly elected president. But even as Americans wait to vote in lines that stretch for blocks through their towns and cities, Mr Trump is engaged in a full-throated assault on the integrity of that essential democratic process. The enormity and variety of Mr Trump’s misdeeds can feel overwhelming. Repetition has dulled the sense of outrage. This is the moment Americans must recover that sense of outrage.
Mr Trump is a man of no integrity. He has repeatedly violated his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Now, in this moment of peril, it falls to the American people – even those who would prefer a Republican president – to preserve, protect and defend the United States by voting.
Someone has already mentioned this in a regard however...... regardless of the result of the current US elections, when Trump is no longer President, he is going to be liable to a massive number of law suites (saying this caused this person to believe that; tweet incited people to riot, etc).
My understanding is that - short of impeachment - he cannot be held liable for an criminal acts whilst he is the President however once he has left office, he can be held liable. Is that correct? Can he be held liable for acts he committed whilst President? Again, my layman understanding is that he can but I would like to hear comments from people who are smarter and wiser than me.
Someone has already mentioned this in a regard however...... regardless of the result of the current US elections, when Trump is no longer President, he is going to be liable to a massive number of law suites (saying this caused this person to believe that; tweet incited people to riot, etc).
My understanding is that - short of impeachment - he cannot be held liable for an criminal acts whilst he is the President however once he has left office, he can be held liable. Is that correct? Can he be held liable for acts he committed whilst President? Again, my layman understanding is that he can but I would like to hear comments from people who are smarter and wiser than me.
I believe so. Nixon was pardoned in 1974 by President Ford for crimes committed whilst in office. Its worth remembering that the acceptance of a presidential pardon carries a confession of guilt.
As to leaving the country, well, he'd have to find somewhere that would take him.
As to leaving the country, well, he'd have to find somewhere that would take him.
Or, more likely, somewhere that doesn't have an extradition agreement with the US.....
I'm sure that Putin would have him over for a nice cup of polonium tea. ;D
Trump could still be liable under state criminal prosecutions, and the same set of facts can be tried under any jurisdiction that criminalizes them.
As an aside, the US has long had a "dual sovereignty" doctrine such that charging someone for the same crime at the federal and state levels doesn't count as double jeopardy...
Even though SCOTUS recently reaffirmed that doctrine, do not be surprised if there's a challenge to it if such a scenario comes to pass.
Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV.
And convict. To quote from a Watergate-era Doonesbury strip, "It would be a disservice ... to prejudge the man, but everything known to date could lead one to conclude he's guilty! That's guilty! Guilty guilty GUILTY!!!"
Nobody gets hacked. To get hacked, you need somebody with 197 IQ and he needs about 15% of your password.
I'm sure hackers around the world took that as a challenge to hack him. If he believes people can't be hacked then it probably means he doesn't take security seriously.
Reminds me of this:
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jeremy-clarkson-victim-of-id-fraud-after-publishing-bank-details/
Reminds me of this:
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jeremy-clarkson-victim-of-id-fraud-after-publishing-bank-details/
Wow. ;D
Why would anyone tempt fate like that?
"He'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards!” to quote the late, great, Sir Terry.Reminds me of this:
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jeremy-clarkson-victim-of-id-fraud-after-publishing-bank-details/
Wow. ;D
Why would anyone tempt fate like that?
You mean like tempting the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing?
Reminds me of this:
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jeremy-clarkson-victim-of-id-fraud-after-publishing-bank-details/
Wow. ;D
Why would anyone tempt fate like that?
You mean like tempting the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing?
I'm sure hackers around the world took that as a challenge to hack him. If he believes people can't be hacked then it probably means he doesn't take security seriously.
Also, if "people don't get hacked" then why was it such a big deal for Hillary Clinton to have her own email server?
Oh my god. Apparently his password was "maga2020!". If that is true he is a bigger idiot than I thought.
Oh my god. Apparently his password was "maga2020!". If that is true he is a bigger idiot than I thought.
For 20 years the paasscode to the "nuclear football" was 8 zeroes.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/12/11/for-nearly-20-years-the-launch-code-for-us-nuclear-missiles-was-00000000/
I live in Texas, just outside of Austin, often described as "the blueberry in the tomato soup." Largely urban, populated mostly by lawyers, musicians, and code monkeys. Strongly liberal, at least by Texas standards.
I’m not going to say Texas is actually in play, but ... this is not following the pattern of the last few decades.
I hope this doesn't make me sound like too bad a person* but I figure the best outcome for the US right now is for Biden to win, but then die in office (or resign due health) a couple of months later, allowing Kamala Harris to take his place.
* I am a little evil but don't hold that against me.....
I hope this doesn't make me sound like too bad a person* but I figure the best outcome for the US right now is for Biden to win, but then die in office (or resign due health) a couple of months later, allowing Kamala Harris to take his place.Two years and one day later...
I hope this doesn't make me sound like too bad a person* but I figure the best outcome for the US right now is for Biden to win, but then die in office (or resign due health) a couple of months later, allowing Kamala Harris to take his place.
* I am a little evil but don't hold that against me.....
I am sure you are not the only person who has.... ahem... entertained this thought.... I for one!
So, a data point in case anyone’s interested...
I live in Texas, just outside of Austin, often described as "the blueberry in the tomato soup." Largely urban, populated mostly by lawyers, musicians, and code monkeys. Strongly liberal, at least by Texas standards.
So, a data point in case anyone’s interested...
I live in Texas, just outside of Austin, often described as "the blueberry in the tomato soup." Largely urban, populated mostly by lawyers, musicians, and code monkeys. Strongly liberal, at least by Texas standards.
There's a quote I've heard attributed to LBJ that in Texas politics there are three types of counties: urban counties, rural counties, and Travis County.
I fear a a greater dysfunction moving forward. The Senate convened and worked in record time to put that horrible woman on the Supreme Court...
...precisely so that she could be in place to rule favorably on what is almost surely to be a contested election. Then the Senate adjourned (not recessed -- that's important) for two weeks...
...without passing sorely needed relief bills sent it it by the House, which have languished for weeks because the Senate Majority Leader (not an office spelled out in the Constitution) has partisan priorities...
Oh my god. Apparently his password was "maga2020!". If that is true he is a bigger idiot than I thought.
Funny how old Trumpy and his campaign keeps coming across those people with 197IQs and 15% of the passwords..... ::)
I fear a a greater dysfunction moving forward. The Senate convened and worked in record time to put that horrible woman on the Supreme Court...
Strong words. Do you mind expanding on this for the benefit of us out-of-towners who don't know her background?
That Horrible Woman is quite firm that her religion is more important to the running of the country than the words of the Constitution, and that's just for starters.
I fear a a greater dysfunction moving forward. The Senate convened and worked in record time to put that horrible woman on the Supreme Court...
Strong words. Do you mind expanding on this for the benefit of us out-of-towners who don't know her background?That Horrible Woman is quite firm that her religion is more important to the running of the country than the words of the Constitution, and that's just for starters.
Imagine if Barack Obama
had nominated a Muslim woman who had made comments along the lines of "My legal career is but a means to an end…and that end is building the Kingdom of Allah." The Republicans would be up in arms. And yet that is apparently what Amy Coney Barrett has said (just substitute "Allah" with "God").
Not everyone in the United States is a Christian. The courts should be fair to everyone, and that means keeping religious beliefs out of the decision making process. I'm sure a Christian traveling in the Middle East would hope for the same if they ever found themselves on trial there.
Strong words.
Do you mind expanding on this for the benefit of us out-of-towners who don't know her background?
In what way is it important?
Briefly, she's a Constitutional originalist. This means she interprets the Constitution, as did her mentor Justice Scalia, according to the meaning of the text as it would have been understood in the days when it was written.
And of course they definitely ignore all eighteenth-century definitions of "militia". to maintain that the weapons that didn't exist at the time are perfectly okay in the home of any rando who wants them.
Because what they're missing is that "militia" had a specific meaning at the time, the US didn't have a standing army at the time, and that nobody intended what they're currently insisting is the meaning of the Amendment.
Which is another major problem with "originalism." It doesn't come with a real grounding in history. If you can get inside the head of James Monroe or similar, the first thing you have to do in order to do it is really learn about not Monroe himself necessarily but the world in which Monroe lived. ... And originalists aren't doing any of that, because they somehow believe that only the words that actually made it into the Constitution matter to define what the words in the Constitution mean.
And they assume all the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant the same thing, which they manifestly did not. Which, again, they'd know if they ever read the Founding Fathers' writings.
The individualist faction of the American gun cult essentially ignores the first clause of the amendment altogether. This is definitely the position of the NRA. They might just as well argue that every individual American has the absolute right to own any kind of firearm that exists.Not anymore. Since Trump has imposed his anti-gun agenda, the NRA in their zeal to support him have abandoned the position that Americans should be able to own any kind of firearm they wish. They have stepped back to only support those kinds that Trump approves of.
"Don't Tread on Me, Except With Trump Brand Boots©", eh? Not so pithy, admittedly. How about, "From my cold, dead hands, except for with your small, little ones"? Snarky jokes aside , the amount of cult of personality Trump has acquired rather alarming. Like, threatening to leave the country if he doesn't win. To the rest of us, "Great!" but to the cult members, the idea of their Messiah leaving must have felt crushing and a call to do anything to keep him in power.The individualist faction of the American gun cult essentially ignores the first clause of the amendment altogether. This is definitely the position of the NRA. They might just as well argue that every individual American has the absolute right to own any kind of firearm that exists.Not anymore. Since Trump has imposed his anti-gun agenda, the NRA in their zeal to support him have abandoned the position that Americans should be able to own any kind of firearm they wish. They have stepped back to only support those kinds that Trump approves of.
"Don't Tread on Me, Except With Trump Brand Boots©", eh? Not so pithy, admittedly. How about, "From my cold, dead hands, except for with your small, little ones"? Snarky jokes aside , the amount of cult of personality Trump has acquired rather alarming. Like, threatening to leave the country if he doesn't win. To the rest of us, "Great!" but to the cult members, the idea of their Messiah leaving must have felt crushing and a call to do anything to keep him in power.The individualist faction of the American gun cult essentially ignores the first clause of the amendment altogether. This is definitely the position of the NRA. They might just as well argue that every individual American has the absolute right to own any kind of firearm that exists.Not anymore. Since Trump has imposed his anti-gun agenda, the NRA in their zeal to support him have abandoned the position that Americans should be able to own any kind of firearm they wish. They have stepped back to only support those kinds that Trump approves of.
I know people who did. I know a lot more people who can't afford to this time around, either.Why would someone do that instead of sticking around to change things? I can understand the desire to seek refuge in another country for security or economic reasons, but to protest the election of a politician?
As many states have scrambled to provide new safe voting options, the notion of what constitutes a lawfully-cast vote will almost certainly be challenged in a way that selectively disenfranchises unwanted groups of voters. Let's be clear: there will be irregularities vote counting. It's an inevitable consequence of trying new polling methods for the first time. And nearly all of them will be innocent and correctible.
Yes, but I'm talking about Trump himself threatening to leave if he doesn't win. Sorry I wasn't clear on that."Don't Tread on Me, Except With Trump Brand Boots©", eh? Not so pithy, admittedly. How about, "From my cold, dead hands, except for with your small, little ones"? Snarky jokes aside , the amount of cult of personality Trump has acquired rather alarming. Like, threatening to leave the country if he doesn't win. To the rest of us, "Great!" but to the cult members, the idea of their Messiah leaving must have felt crushing and a call to do anything to keep him in power.
To be fair, a lot of Clinton supporters said the same thing in the first few months after the 2016 election.
Yes, but I'm talking about Trump himself threatening to leave if he doesn't win. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.It would be the smartest thing he has done in a while provided he goes to a country that will not extradite him at the request of the United States. :)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/trump-may-leave-country-if-he-loses-prison-criminal-prosecution.html
As many states have scrambled to provide new safe voting options, the notion of what constitutes a lawfully-cast vote will almost certainly be challenged in a way that selectively disenfranchises unwanted groups of voters. Let's be clear: there will be irregularities vote counting. It's an inevitable consequence of trying new polling methods for the first time. And nearly all of them will be innocent and correctible.
As a Brit, I have to say I stare in slack-jawed amazement at the system in the US that allows politicians and courts to mess around with how votes are collected and counted during an election. Challenging the outcome is one thing, but actively seeking to count or discount votes that have been cast, changing how many polling stations are set up in any given county, and arguing over when the final result is actually in and valid, all while votes are being cast, is just incredible to me.
When I vote in an election, I know what day to go to the nearest polling station, and I know we have so many in the area that if I go to my local one at any given time of day the chances are I will have to stand in line for maybe ten minutes if at all. We have had so many elections in the last few years for one thing or another over here, and I haven't had to stand in line once. No-one, not politicians, not courts, gets to challenge how an election is conducted during it. Calls for reform may happen after unpopular outcomes (as they often do), but never in my lifetime have we had anyone try to change how an election is carried out and how votes are considered valid while one is actually taking place. That's not to say the system is perfect, far from it. But at least it is stable and I have no reason to be concerned that my vote will not be counted if I either mail it in by the appropriate deadline or go to a polling station on election day.
Not anymore. Since Trump has imposed his anti-gun agenda, the NRA in their zeal to support him have abandoned the position that Americans should be able to own any kind of firearm they wish. They have stepped back to only support those kinds that Trump approves of.
It's mindbogglingly shocking, isn't it? Especially from a nation that shouts about democracy at every opportunity. It's like watching some banana republic at work.
It's mindbogglingly shocking, isn't it? Especially from a nation that shouts about democracy at every opportunity. It's like watching some banana republic at work.
What can I say? I have no defense for the deplorable condition of American electoral policy and practice.
Im waiting for the first shooting at a polling booth by some Trump-supporting knuckle-dragger.
I know people who did. I know a lot more people who can't afford to this time around, either.Why would someone do that instead of sticking around to change things? I can understand the desire to seek refuge in another country for security or economic reasons, but to protest the election of a politician?
Im waiting for the first shooting at a polling booth by some Trump-supporting knuckle-dragger.
I'm expecting there to be some major voter intimidation happening. I wouldn't be surprised to see militia groups show up at polling stations with guns to "monitor for cheating". We'll see if the police will do anything to stop it.
As a Brit, I have to say I stare in slack-jawed amazement at the system in the US that allows politicians and courts to mess around with how votes are collected and counted during an election. Challenging the outcome is one thing, but actively seeking to count or discount votes that have been cast, changing how many polling stations are set up in any given county, and arguing over when the final result is actually in and valid, all while votes are being cast, is just incredible to me.
It's mindbogglingly shocking, isn't it? Especially from a nation that shouts about democracy at every opportunity. It's like watching some banana republic at work.
What can I say? I have no defense for the deplorable condition of American electoral policy and practice.
As a Brit, I have to say I stare in slack-jawed amazement at the system in the US that allows politicians and courts to mess around with how votes are collected and counted during an election.I'll echo Jason's thoughts and add that it's also surprising that there are no national regulations on voting procedures, dates, times, using postal ballots or voter registration. It seems to be different from state to state (possibly even for counties?) with some very strange decisions being made on these. Surely these should have been made consistent across the country years ago.
...
I'm expecting there to be some major voter intimidation happening. I wouldn't be surprised to see militia groups show up at polling stations with guns to "monitor for cheating". We'll see if the police will do anything to stop it.
I expect Antifa to commit suicidal acts of terrorism if Trump wins again.
And if Biden wins, they will still. Because Antifa will believe this to be the wild card they need to completely take over cities, rural areas and private land/buildings to enforce (their Idea of) communism.
I expect Antifa to commit suicidal acts of terrorism if Trump wins again.
And if Biden wins, they will still. Because Antifa will believe this to be the wild card they need to completely take over cities, rural areas and private land/buildings to enforce (their Idea of) communism.
That's certainly not the move I would have predicted. The NRA has rarely deferred to any single politician. The Trump personality cult must indeed be powerful.I bought an NRA life membership for $300 a few years ago so I could keep my membership at a local gun club that requires NRA membership. So now I get their magazine. A recent issue had a glowing opinion piece on Trump's devotion to the 2nd Amendment which was obviously written by a person who thinks the average NRA member is a complete idiot. The article was more anti-Biden than pro-Trump though.
Trump's army of poll watchers is turning out to be more of a platoon. (https://www.propublica.org/article/so-far-trumps-army-of-poll-watchers-looks-more-like-a-small-platoon) It looks like Trump and Don Jr's exhortations for the faithful to man the barricades has gone down like a lead Trump-boat :DHow does one monitor for cheating at the polling place? Do they just see if anyone votes then gets back in line? Keep a list of names/photos to identify those who known to be ineligible? I've only voted by mail since 1984.
Trump's army of poll watchers is turning out to be more of a platoon. (https://www.propublica.org/article/so-far-trumps-army-of-poll-watchers-looks-more-like-a-small-platoon) It looks like Trump and Don Jr's exhortations for the faithful to man the barricades has gone down like a lead Trump-boat :DHow does one monitor for cheating at the polling place? Do they just see if anyone votes then gets back in line? Keep a list of names/photos to identify those who known to be ineligible? I've only voted by mail since 1984.
My opinion on gun forums is that Biden is not capable of grabbing as many guns as Trump did with his bump stock ban unless he does it using the authority of his office and has the CFR amended to classify any semi-auto firearm capable of bump fire (nearly all of them) as a machine gun. This would make all semi-autos made after May 1986 contraband. Mine is not a popular opinion.
It's truly amazing that there aren't set deadlines for these things, subject, of course, to reasonable situational issues, such as we are currently facing.
...someone said that my vote is no longer legal, and won't be counted. Um, no. And that doesn't even get into the issues Jay and others raised about polling and drop-off locations, changes to ID requirements, etc.
...it's the responsibility of the current administration to ensure that the voting process is valid, to protect it from interference and fraud.
I'll echo Jason's thoughts and add that it's also surprising that there are no national regulations on voting procedures, dates, times, using postal ballots or voter registration. It seems to be different from state to state (possibly even for counties?) with some very strange decisions being made on these. Surely these should have been made consistent across the country years ago.
How does one monitor for cheating at the polling place?
"That guy looks like an illegal immigrant! He can't vote! Shenanigans!" - a Trump supporter
There are deadlines. According to 3 U.S.C. § 5, states are required to complete any dispute-resolution procedures by the sixth day before the Electoral College is to vote. Not all those procedures are people trying to steal elections. For example, lots of places require a recount if the margin of victory is too small. That's something that would have to be completed by the deadline. But this year it will certainly apply to all the festivities that will likely arise.
It's not quite as straightforward as that. Since the federal government has no power to regulate a State's method of choosing electors, it has no additional duty to sustain whatever infrastructure a State, by its own discretion, has allowed as part of that process. The U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure a certain acceptable level of operation of the U.S. Postal Service for many reasons. But it's not responsible for others' discretionary use of it. We don't send cash through ordinary mail because it's understood the service is not reliable enough to guarantee delivery. And some States don't yet consider it reliable enough to use it exclusively for voting, along with the other uncertainties that can arise when voting is not in person. That others have greater faith can certainly factor into the reasoning in U.S.P.S applies when designing and operating the service. But ultimately the buck stops at the States in deciding how to handle ballots.
There really isn't much of a Gotcha here. The federal government can certainly do much to hamper election integrity -- especially by undermining the mail. Those are criminally actionable offenses, if overt enough. But it has little responsibility to ensure or guarantee something that is the States' duty to do. In this case President Trump can "credibly" whine about the States allegedly falling short in stopping fraud and therefore being unfair to his election chances. Credible only in the sense that it correctly outlines the responsibilities; not credible in the sense that any facts support those claims.
I actually was thinking more about deadlines in terms of procedures for polling locations and times, requirements for ID, what criteria trigger a recount, that sort of thing, that would have to be set prior to election day...
That makes sense. I know that the States are responsible for enforcing their own election laws, which vary state to state, but was thinking that, due to the use of the USPS, that there would also be some responsibility at the federal level to ensure that its use was valid.
What are they going to do about Miculek's finger?They'll (the Trump supporters) will say "no one needs to shoot like that", "no need for that kind of shooting for hunters" or "what do you want to shoot like that for?". It is weird. I only used to hear that from my "less gun enthusiastic" friends. :)
Looks like Trump will win again. Well done America, you can complete your slide into fascism.
<slow handclaps>
Looks like Trump will win again. Well done America, you can complete your slide into fascism.
<slow handclaps>
I'm not giving up hope that Biden will end up winning. But regardless, it is shameful that it is this close and that so many people continue to support Donald Trump. I can forgive people for falling for the con in 2016 and voting for Trump because they didn't know he was a racist scumbag. There is no excuse now.
There should be an investigation into how the USPS handled their role. A judge ordered them to sweep all mail sorting facilities for over 300,000 outstanding ballots and Postmaster General Lois DeJoy refused to do so. That is election interference, and it almost certainly benefitted Trump.
Postal Service misses court-ordered deadline for unsent mail ballots (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/524347-postal-service-misses-court-ordered-deadline-for-unsent-mail-ballots)
There should be an investigation into how the USPS handled their role.
It shouldn't be close. I literally do not understand people who can look at [gestures vaguely] and say, "Yes, this is how I want my country to look." Or all those people who somehow believe the current administration has done the best they can with the pandemic, which is one of the most demonstrably untrue things ever.
this man (and I use the term loosely) is an openly admitted misogynist, bigot, racist, narcissist and possibly the biggest liar in US political history.... and people still want him?
I couldn't agree more. I simply do not understand: this man (and I use the term loosely) is an openly admitted misogynist, bigot, racist, narcissist and possibly the biggest liar in US political history.... and people still want him?Who do you think is voting for him? It is the misogynists, bigots, racists, narcissists and liars who are in his corner. I'm certain that many for them wish they could assault women as a perk of wealth, take credit for anything they want while denying responsibility for everything and run away from their debts. You know, the scum of the country.
As usual, Gillianren's contributions are right on point.
The worst form of originalism is intentionalism, which presumes not just to be able to determine what words meant in 1790, but what certain men might have intended in 1790, whether they externalized those thoughts or not. Imagine having the final say in a capital case, but you base your decision on what you guess people originally intended who lived long ago in a different place. This is the worst case of government by men and not by laws. So originalists try very hard not to delve into original intent because of the inherent subjectivity. This is why they draw a bright line cutting off anything that didn't actually make it into the text of the Constitution. Everything else is, according to them, and improper attempt to infer intent.
The final projections should be complete by the end of the week. But because there's a "safe harbor" law to allow for the inevitable disputes that will arise in various states, the final result won't be assured until Dec. 8, the deadline for slating the electors.
Large, animated crush of “stop the count” protestors trying to push their way into TCF hall in #Detroit where ballots are being counted.
They’re being blocked by guards at the door.
Pizza boxes are pushed against the window to obstruct view. It’s tense.
I understand that your method of electing a president funnels you into a two-party system.
Where I live, anybody can start a new party, collect supporters (usually by having people sign up in the streets) and present a certain number of written endorsements. It's not exactly like that, dunno the exact lingo, but if enough people will put their name on "I think this party might be a good idea"-paper, then that person can run for the danish parlament. The backers don't have to vote for this party or pay a fee to this party. They just have to say "I think this party should be allowed to be on the ballot for the next election".
Then that party must acheive at least 2% of the votes to actually get a seat (two seats, since there are 179 seats in total). This system ensures there's a wide number of parties to represent the citizens. After the election, the Queen appoints a Royal Negotiator, usually the foreperson of the largest party, who then attempts to form a government with 90 members of parliament behind it. By negotiating with other parties, promising ministery posts and changes to laws in exchange for votes in the parliament, the Royal Negotiator hopefully reaches a solution which can then be presented to the Queen. The Prime Minister usually is the foreperson of the largest party in the coalition of parties working together.
That way, small parties with only a few seats in the parliament can effect significant influence, by "selling" its votes to the coalition which offers the most in return.
A well-known danish comedian, musician, writer and ex-alcoholic with a daughter with muscle wasting disease, and usually a conferencier at a series of open-air concerts to benefit a foundation for people with muscle wasting disease. He founded a party called "The society for deliberately work-dodging elements", on a programme promising more following wind on bike-paths. And Nutella in field rations, among other things.
He got elected, and was a member of parliament for four years.
And people were deeply surprised when he actually was very serious. In Denmark, political parties are paid after an electrion from public funds relative to their number of votes. He used his money to serve hotdogs and beer on a public square.
Didn't get the following wind through parliament though. But he DID get real Nutella in the army's field rations.
Who do you think is voting for him? It is the misogynists, bigots, racists, narcissists and liars who are in his corner.
... But he DID get real Nutella in the army's field rations.Now that's something worth voting for. Nutella should be a basic human right for everyone ;D
Who do you think is voting for him? It is the misogynists, bigots, racists, narcissists and liars who are in his corner.
It's no surprise that those were voting for him, but that
- they are so many of them
- enough voters were willing to believe Trump's "Fake news" denials
- enough voters were willing to ignore his behavior, and vote for him anyway
Who do you think is voting for him? It is the misogynists, bigots, racists, narcissists and liars who are in his corner.
It's no surprise that those were voting for him, but that
- they are so many of them
- enough voters were willing to believe Trump's "Fake news" denials
- enough voters were willing to ignore his behavior, and vote for him anyway
A lot of voters may be looking at single issues and ignoring the other aspects of his personality - "Well, he may be a bit homophobic, but he's trying to stop illegal immigrants.", "Well, he may be a bit racist, but he's pro-life." ... mix & match as required. They'll give him a pass on all his other flaws, as long as he's supporting (or claiming to) the issue they see as most important.
But I read an article somewhere in the last week or so which said the strongest indicator of whether someone would vote for Trump was, simply, that they usually voted Republican.
A lot of voters may be looking at single issues and ignoring the other aspects of his personality - "Well, he may be a bit homophobic, but he's trying to stop illegal immigrants.", "Well, he may be a bit racist, but he's pro-life." ... mix & match as required. They'll give him a pass on all his other flaws, as long as he's supporting (or claiming to) the issue they see as most important.Well, the GOP had control of the White House and Congress from 2016-2018. No significant action on abortion, curbing illegal immigration (especially punishing like Trump those who employ them) or gun control unless you count his gun grab. Trump did manage to change many self-professed gun nuts into whiney anti-gun weasels. :)
One was that the millions of dollars spent on TV ads by the Democrats appear to have had no effect on changing people's minds.
He got elected, and was a member of parliament for four years.
One was that the millions of dollars spent on TV ads by the Democrats appear to have had no effect on changing people's minds.
The other was that the success of the Democrats in Georgia has been due to the work of Stacey Abrams in building the party up by the grassroots.
I do believe I've made a couple of comments in the last year or so about the importance of doing exactly that. Assuming it's an accurate assessment, hopefully the party in other states will follow her example.
Listening to Trumps speech live, he is clearly insane.
Listening to Trumps speech live, he is clearly insane.
Here in Australia it seems we elect footballers instead. Or journalists.
Here in Australia it seems we elect footballers instead. Or journalists.
In Italy, they had Ilona Staller, a.k.a. Cicciolina...
Here in Australia it seems we elect footballers instead. Or journalists.
In Italy, they had Ilona Staller, a.k.a. Cicciolina...
We had an olympic medalist shortputter for 4 years. What a waste of oxygen.
Her claim to fame was she owned a fish & chip shop.....
Indeed, we can cite many past Presidents who were thoughtful, articulate, compassionate, and intelligent. And it's hard to imagine how anyone could disagree with that. But in fact a large fraction of America has come to regard such talents as signs of liberal elitism. Rather than being comforted and inspired by such performances, they're put off by them. They've been conditioned to regard them as Establishment leadership that's far removed from their everyday problems.
In contrast, there was a guy reviewing The Comey Rule in some ephemeral video who pointed out that Donald Trump has never finished a sentence in his life. Hyperbole aside, he's not very wrong. It's something I've always referred to as a "stream of semi-consciousness." And ironically this appeals to vast numbers of Americans. Despite his being inarticulate and illiterate, Trump comes across to his base as speaking from the heart directly to them, instead of carefully-prepared, politically-vetted speeches.
They're already talking about running Trump again in 2024. I honestly don't think he'll live that long.
They're already talking about running Trump again in 2024. I honestly don't think he'll live that long.
So what odds are being given for Trump to actually concede the election?
Come on Donny be the big man. 1000-1 on him actually doing it.
So what odds are being given for Trump to actually concede the election?
Come on Donny be the big man. 1000-1 on him actually doing it.
At the very least Trump will just play golf until January 20th. Why would he start doing the job now?
But it's okay if their pastors are articulate?
Indeed, we can cite many past Presidents who were thoughtful, articulate, compassionate, and intelligent. And it's hard to imagine how anyone could disagree with that. But in fact a large fraction of America has come to regard such talents as signs of liberal elitism. Rather than being comforted and inspired by such performances, they're put off by them. They've been conditioned to regard them as Establishment leadership that's far removed from their everyday problems.
In contrast, there was a guy reviewing The Comey Rule in some ephemeral video who pointed out that Donald Trump has never finished a sentence in his life. Hyperbole aside, he's not very wrong. It's something I've always referred to as a "stream of semi-consciousness." And ironically this appeals to vast numbers of Americans. Despite his being inarticulate and illiterate, Trump comes across to his base as speaking from the heart directly to them, instead of carefully-prepared, politically-vetted speeches.
They're already talking about running Trump again in 2024. I honestly don't think he'll live that long.
But it's okay if their pastors are articulate?
President Donald Trump's campaign helped recruit volunteers in Wisconsin this week to call supporters in Pennsylvania to urge them to mail in absentee ballots by Friday — even as the president rails against late ballots and the ongoing vote count.
Only votes that were cast or postmarked by Tuesday are legal, according to Pennsylvania and federal election laws. Trump has described any effort to vote after Tuesday as clear election fraud.
I've had a bottle of Moët 2009 in the studio refrigerator for four years waiting to celebrate this day.
And yes, the States are well aware of when they need to segregate late-arriving absentee ballots, and the tally systems are ever so capable of segregating the tallies for ballots that may be in dispute for one reason or another. And the operation of these systems is, and has always been, overseen by previously selected inspectors from all interested political parties.
And yes, the few lawsuits I have been able to read, questioning the votes or tallies, are comically inept. And I read many of Orly Taitz's filings during the Birther era.
I'm surprised by this. I thought he would have been able to afford skilled lawyers who could present a challenging case. Like the way Alan Dershowitz was part of his team for the impeachment trial.
I'm surprised by this. I thought he would have been able to afford skilled lawyers who could present a challenging case. Like the way Alan Dershowitz was part of his team for the impeachment trial.
I'm surprised by this. I thought he would have been able to afford skilled lawyers who could present a challenging case. Like the way Alan Dershowitz was part of his team for the impeachment trial.
The quality lawyers recognize a weak case when they see it and don't want to tarnish their reputation by being associated with it. Plus, they probably know Trump's dire financial situation and his reputation for stiffing people, and probably doubt that they will be paid.
The best lawyers YOUR money can buy.
The former, the man is a textbook demagogue, mixed with the narcissism to believe the latter despite any evidence to the contrary, I'd wager.
Anyone else feel that Biden didn't win so much as Trump lost?
I've just had a bit of a laugh over a couple of issues which I'll leave the resourceful people here to find for themselves (if you haven't already):
- Rudi Giuliani at Four Seasons; and
And it's across from a crematorium damn near an adult toy store apparently. Perfect location for the man whose political career has just died and gone up in smoke after over half of America tells him to go self fornicate.
I think that history will not be kind to Trump (or his enablers).
Oh for a time machine, to see what's written in a couple of hundred years about the events of the last few months...
The best lawyers YOUR money can buy.
I couldn't believe it when Trump tweeted about a major press conference at the Four Seasons and then clarified that it was a gardening place in the middle of an industrial estate in what looks like a very rundown part of town.
I'm also still sticking with my prediction of a civil war starting over the next few weeks, as Trump tries to destroy everything with his death throes.
A civil war will not happen. Not enough of his sycophants actually care enough to do it. Certainly they have no concept of working together, kind of necessary for that sort of thing. He doesn't have the generals--they hate him--so the military isn't on his side. And frankly, a lot of his gun nut followers are cowards who like talking a big game but wouldn't risk themselves.
A civil war will not happen. Not enough of his sycophants actually care enough to do it. Certainly they have no concept of working together, kind of necessary for that sort of thing. He doesn't have the generals--they hate him--so the military isn't on his side. And frankly, a lot of his gun nut followers are cowards who like talking a big game but wouldn't risk themselves.
I enjoyed that. :)
I realise this is a few years old, but it still seems relevant today
I realise this is a few years old, but it still seems relevant today
;D ;D ;D
That's pretty much how Trump is behaving right now. "I don't wanna go! I don't wanna go!"
That's my worry as well. That said, I do think the Trump presidency is going to be remembered by future historians as a definite weakening in The Rise and Fall of the American Hegemony.A civil war will not happen. Not enough of his sycophants actually care enough to do it. Certainly they have no concept of working together, kind of necessary for that sort of thing. He doesn't have the generals--they hate him--so the military isn't on his side. And frankly, a lot of his gun nut followers are cowards who like talking a big game but wouldn't risk themselves.
I'm not so worried about a full scale civil war, but I do worry about the small number of lone gunmen and Timothy McVeighs that might be out there.
Looks like Trump was correct all along about voter fraud!
Pennsylvania has arrested someone for faking his dead mother's signature on a mail-in ballot. First case in three decades. Guess which candidate the accused supported?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/-trump-supporter-arrested-voter-fraud-pennsylvania_n_5f91e43ec5b61c185f4848de?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9jb25zZW50LnlhaG9vLmNvbS92Mi9jb2xsZWN0Q29uc2VudD9zZXNzaW9uSWQ9M19jYy1zZXNzaW9uXzE0YTk1ZGI4LWEyMzEtNDViYi1iMDQ3LTBhYjU3ODhlMjNkYg&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE5LLpyExhuOKrBqv62RppM8FCv9iLRVw8fUQ5Uj80qKB8trGgIbPNp3NVyPPwNPDjxiX41T9GPav9HnNwMir8Z8gjbfdL5Qn1PZ7Zbf-6c2iUAggQbZx6bTLoVU_SPKTmAh8GvFnAIW_WfbsIC7Iq-0JlzTsicz3g3Fhw7T1llm
I'm not so worried about a full scale civil war, but I do worry about the small number of lone gunmen and Timothy McVeighs that might be out there.
Quelle surprise......the incompetence continues.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk9GJjXR/Em-ZWHx-HW8-AAmx-T3.jpg)
The conspiracist in me says that if they don't fix the defect, then it gets thrown out on a 'technicality', which, as we all know from Hollywood, is how criminals avoid being found guilty of their crimes...!
The conspiracist in me says that if they don't fix the defect, then it gets thrown out on a 'technicality', which, as we all know from Hollywood, is how criminals avoid being found guilty of their crimes...!
Ha ha, sure. The Trump campaign has an airtight case, and some corrupt Deep State judge dismisses it on a "technicality."
I'm worried that the opposite could happen. The Trump campaign has an extremely weak case, but some corrupt judge that he appointed will allow it to proceed due to a biased interpretation of the law.
And let's be frank: that's exactly what the Republican plan is. They want at least one case to get to the Supreme Court so that the conservative supermajority they railroaded into it can provide a nationally-binding precedent on some key issue.
I'm worried that the opposite could happen. The Trump campaign has an extremely weak case, but some corrupt judge that he appointed will allow it to proceed due to a biased interpretation of the law.
Yup, Bush v. Gore.
And let's be frank: that's exactly what the Republican plan is. They want at least one case to get to the Supreme Court so that the conservative supermajority they railroaded into it can provide a nationally-binding precedent on some key issue.
Sigh. I hope you guys get through this. If Trump somehow manages to overrule 76 million voters there will be riots that make the BLM protests look like a church picnic.
I wish our internal politics didn't have such a huge effect on the rest of the world. I understand why it does (we gots da nukes), but frankly we're currently in a very bad, very scary place, and I fervently hope that we can keep it contained and beat it back. Like I've said before, Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem, and voting him out of office doesn't make the problem go away.
Yeah.
It will take quite a while for us to trust America not to go crazy again.
Doesn't matter what the Court says, somebody will use that result to argue a case in the future.
They're already rehabilitating the Trumpers who've jumped ship.
Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem, and voting him out of office doesn't make the problem go away.
A question, how are these law suits being paid for? By the presidents office? From party funds? I think trump should be sent the Bill personally, for both sides, if he loses.
The electorates don't vote until Dec. 14. That is when the Presidency is decided. Electorates can vote any way they decide. 76on..
So that's that. 306-232. BBC said it, so it must be true. Though is it really beyond their wit to represent Nebraska and Maine accurately?
So that's 5 states flipped. And also a Nebraska district?
BTW, has anyone worked out what it would be if every state did what Maine and Nebraska do? That would seem to be a better way to do it. Though, it probably wouldn't be favourable to Biden since Trump gets to the 3 ECV states, which would be unchanged by such a practice.
I live less than 90km (55 miles) from the nearest US border crossing, so it annoys me whenever a Trump supporter says "You're Canadian, why do you care? Mind your own business!".
Of course, if the states changed their voting systems to match Maine and Nebraska, then the parties would change the way they'd campaign, so I don't think we can draw too much from saying a past election result would have changed.It would also change how people vote, and who votes.
One of its apparently intended functions, Protection from Demagogues, isn't doing so hot.
US election live: 'Very ugly scenes' as pro-Trump rally turns violent
Far right and left groups have clashed in Washington DC following a pro-Trump rally leaving at least one man critically injured following a stabbing.
Just how tainted will the Trump administration be? Those who left early should be okay but the people who are still hanging on must be doing so because if they don't win then their political life is over? They know this is a 'do or die' situation?
Just how toxic will having been associated with the Trump administration (and just Trump) be?
But to me, the kicker is that the current and previous two administrations have had a common policy, which is that foreigners (unless they have been lawfully admitted to the United States) have no rights, including the right to be alive. A legal researcher for the Obama administration spelled its reasoning out pretty clearly. The United States is at war with an unspecified enemy. The entire world is a battlefield. So if you are a non-American located on this battlefield, then you are a combatant. And combatants may be killed.
BTW, has anyone worked out what it would be if every state did what Maine and Nebraska do?
Someone needs to take Giuliani to one side, make him a nice cup of tea and plonk him in the day-room where he can watch TV. Hopefully he will not bother the other residents too much.
I would guess that the only person who thinks Giuliani is even remotely competent is Trump himself.
I would guess that the only person who thinks Giuliani is even remotely competent is Trump himself. He may have been a reasonably capable lawyer at one time, but the last few years (decades?) have been a catalogue of disasters.
I would guess that the only person who thinks Giuliani is even remotely competent is Trump himself. He may have been a reasonably capable lawyer at one time, but the last few years (decades?) have been a catalogue of disasters.
I believe he did good legal work against the mob decades ago. It's been a heck of a slide since those days.
"brilliant in his arguments" ;DI would guess that the only person who thinks Giuliani is even remotely competent is Trump himself.
I guess Rudi himself also hás some delusions of greatness.
But even Sean Hannity hides behind “I heard from more than a few people that he was absolutely brilliant in his arguments today,”
"brilliant in his arguments" ;DI would guess that the only person who thinks Giuliani is even remotely competent is Trump himself.
I guess Rudi himself also hás some delusions of greatness.
But even Sean Hannity hides behind “I heard from more than a few people that he was absolutely brilliant in his arguments today,”
The last report I saw about him was in a case about minor quibbles in the counting procedures, where he started going on about fraud and promoting various conspiracy theories. The judge eventually asked him what relevance any of it had to the case being considered, and he admitted there wasn't any and shut up for the rest of the case... :)
... Apparently Trump has tweeted that there's going to be another major press conference today.
Is there anything significant in the words "with prejudice" or is it standard legal wording in these sorts of documents?
Where would that appeal be held? Would he have to seek leave to appeal or would the appeal be automatically heard?
The judge says that the individual voters didn't have standing because they sued counties which allowed voters to fix mail-in ballots, when they should have sued their own counties which didn't allow voters to fix mail-in ballots. That seems a pretty fundamental mistake to make.
Do you think perhaps they were so anti-Democratic Party that it simply didn't occur to them to sue the people actually responsible for their disenfranchisement...
...and do you think it might have made a difference to their case if they'd done so?
Also, if this was about the Equal Protection Clause, does this clause only apply within states, or does it apply between states too? That is, can people try to make a case that their state should offer X the same way another state does?
Is there any significance that the judge didn't consider the third version of the case? Or is that because it had already failed in so many ways that this wasn't necessary?
Could that be used as a ground for appeal?
Shouldn't "states" read "counties"?
The pundits are saying that Trump will leave but never admit he was beaten. Looking at his track record, I think the pundits are correct. He'll continually claim he was robbed.
And now I'm wondering what this Sidney Powell person is going to come up with that's going to make Georgia howl (thank you General Sherman).Looks like her crazy conspiracy theory involving the Canadian-owned Dominion voting system, Hugo Chavez (dead for the last 7 years) and the Trump-backing Republican Brian Kemp was too crazy even for Trump. She's been fired.....
Over at UM someone has provided links to articles suggesting that Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh are skeptical of her...
Someone on another forum linked to the live stream of Georgia's certification meeting last night, and I watched some of it out of interest. The statements from various poll watchers and officials was quite eye-opening, with person after person describing nonsensical attempts by Republican watchers to interfere with and slow down the counting process. I know it's part of the process to ensure fairness and prevent fraud, but to politicise it in this way is shocking.
I'd hope that stricter rules about what is and isn't acceptable are introduced, otherwise I can imagine vote counting to be severely impacted in future elections.
Meh. Whatever.
His fragile little-man ego won't cope, but he'll be gone.
[Sidney Powell's] been fired.....
That's been Trump's playbook from day one. Accuse others of doing what he has been doing in plain view. Trump accuses the Democratic party of stealing the election whilst he is busy trying to steal the election.
Is it possible they won't continue to give him briefings? It's a well-established fact that he doesn't pay attention to briefing now, and I can't see that anyone would be in need of his advice and experience.
Is it possible they won't continue to give him briefings? It's a well-established fact that he doesn't pay attention to briefing now, and I can't see that anyone would be in need of his advice and experience.
By tradition, sitting presidents offer occasional briefings to former presidents. It's considered good practice for all involved. For example, when a former president plans to travel abroad, a briefing can make sure he's up to speed and doesn't say anything that would be out of line with current administration policy.
Priess said he once delivered such a briefing to George H.W. Bush before he made a post-presidential trip to the Middle East.
But these briefings are a courtesy, not the law.
Former presidents get "Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives. They get money for a staff and an office. All of that is provided for in legislation," said Priess. "But that legislation does not say that the former president has a lifelong right to receive the President's Daily Brief or other top-secret materials that they received while they were president."
(c) Former Presidents and Vice Presidents. Any former President or Vice President may submit a request for access to classified CIA information. Requests from former Presidents or Vice Presidents shall be in writing to the Coordinator and shall identify the records containing the classified information of interest. A former President or Vice President may also request approval for a research associate, but there is no entitlement to such enlargement of access and the decision in this regard shall be in the sole discretion of the Senior Agency Official
I've found several other sections in the Code of Federal Regulations that make it sound like former Presidents and Vice-Presidents may request access to classified information, but are not provided with it as a matter of course. The request must be submitted in writing with assurance that the information will be safeguarded.
Hey, Donald J. Trump hires only "the best people." In order to litigate in various state and federal courts, you need to hire attorneys who are admitted to the bar there, and who understand the state's procedural rules and the ground rules of each individual court. But of course the Trump team sends in people like Powell and Giuliani to dictate the desired strategy to these local counselors. And as those Trump operatives become increasing unhinged, no serious attorney wants to be associated with them. So ultimately it comes down to a practical question. If literally no one wants to work as local counsel for Trump For President anymore, then he literally can't accomplish the work to prosecute his case. So he has no choice but to cut Powell loose, no matter how much he wants to play the QAnon card for theatrical effect.
Even in large cities, legal communities are relatively small. Everyone knows everyone else, at least at the firm level. Every attorney knows all the judges and all the judges know all the attorneys. Getting embroiled in something like nutjob conspiracy theories in the serious practice of law will taint their reputations, even if they previously didn't have much of one. Nobody forgets that time you got laughed out of court after pitching a conspiracy theory with no evidence. I'm sure there would be plenty of firms willing to litigate Trump's election challenges as long as they were able to develop the strategy. But only the most desperate firms with nothing to lose, I think, would be willing to let themselves be led around by the likes of Powell and Giuliani.
I've often thought they should give Donald Trump some false intel about something that Russia would be interested in and then wait to see if they act on it in some way.
Another way to approach this, given what the regulations actually say, would be to note that Donald J. Trump would probably prefer to rely upon his own "knowledge" and "expertise" when appearing in public as the former President.
Another way to approach this, given what the regulations actually say, would be to note that Donald J. Trump would probably prefer to rely upon his own "knowledge" and "expertise" when appearing in public as the former President.
Even leaving aside any scenarios of him selling the information, Trump being Trump would probably request it just because he felt entitled to it and to be a nuisance to the new administration
Could that be used as a ground for appeal?
I was going to tell you all a Rudy Giuliani joke, but it’s lost its appeal.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/pennsylvania-judge-backs-trump-claim-in-case-over-mail-voting
Is there anything of concern in this judge's ruling?
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/pennsylvania-judge-backs-trump-claim-in-case-over-mail-voting
Is there anything of concern in this judge's ruling?
Nope. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just dismissed the case.
Can that decision be appealed? If so, to which court?
As far as I can see from UM, the grand strategy is to keep appealing until they can get their case before the SCOTUS where they assume they'll get whatever they ask for.
The lawsuits ... are a PR strategy primarily to soak as many rubes for as many dollars as possible...
The lawsuits ... are a PR strategy primarily to soak as many rubes for as many dollars as possible...
An excellent point. The "legal defense" fund is up to $170 million as of this writing. 75% goes to Trump's political campaign. 25% goes to the Republican National Committee. It's unclear how much of it is actually going to be used to litigate lawsuits.
The entities over which he has control can investigate only violations of federal law. And there is precious little federal law governing how elections can be run in states.
Again, the problem isn't Trump. He's just a symptom of the problem.
The problem is that the GOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of right-wing media. The RNC doesn't call the shots, FOX/Newsmax/OANN calls the shots. The Republican Party has effectively ceased to exist as an independent entity.
Why haven't Republican leadership in Congress said anything about Trump's unhinged conspiracy theories? Why haven't they pushed back? Why is it state-level Republican officials are the ones having to do the heavy lifting here and beat back the crazy? Why are they allowing this nonsense to continue?
Because they're not the ones with the power. Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are the ones with the power. Hannity is Prothero from "V for Vendetta."
Trump could drop dead tomorrow, the entire Trump family could fade into the depths of Eastern Europe away from any extradition treaties, but the problem doesn't go away. The problem is still there, and it's getting worse, and I don't know how to stop it. I don't know that it can be stopped.
That is something that still amazes me - no Federal electoral agency. Sure, for state election have states run the electoral process but on the national scale? There shouldn't be different rules for different states. It's a national event, and there should be national rules.
Human rights should not be a state matter, in my opinion. People should not have to worry if they can have their actual identity be legally changed from what it was assumed to be upon birth just because they happen to have been born in a certain state.
The fact that many states technically still have 'Anti-Sodomy' laws on the books is an absolute travesty. Sure, they're not enforced, but they could be.
I expect a Twitter tantrum any time soon... :-)
The Chief Election Officer and Secretary of State for Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, has thanked the state's attorney general and local law enforcement for assisting after armed protesters gathered outside her family home on the weekend.
Michigan officials last month certified the state’s election results showing president-elect Joe Biden had won the state, but the group who rallied outside Benson's home held up placards that read "stop the steal" and chanted "bogus" electoral fraud claims.
On a slightly different note, does anyone have any thoughts on the case Texas has brought before the Supreme Court?Is that the one the Supreme Court summarily dismissed in one scathing line? ;D
On a slightly different note, does anyone have any thoughts on the case Texas has brought before the Supreme Court?Is that the one the Supreme Court summarily dismissed in one scathing line? ;D
What's this about other states joining in on this Texan action?
On a slightly different note, does anyone have any thoughts on the case Texas has brought before the Supreme Court?
Do you think there might be an attempt to form a breakaway 'Trump' party, like what happened with the Tea Party?Eh, I doubt it. US politics is downright lethal to third parties for presidential elections. No, I think they'll want to keep things under one roof as long as they can, so they can still have the "My grandfather voted Republican, my father voted Republican, so God dammit, I'm voting Republican."right wing voters as well as the Trumpets.
[snip]
The doctrine of laches says that you must begin to pursue a remedy in court upon knowledge of first injury. You may not delay, or as the legal jargon goes: "sleep on your rights." This is especially true when delay would prejudice any court action against the defendant. For example, if I discovered that someone was infringing on my patent, I cannot wait a year or two until they have amassed a pot of revenue as the fruits of their infringement, and then swoop to claim it as ill-gotten gain. I had the duty to stake my claim before the defendant committed further resources.
Here, when the claim is that a law is unconstitutional on its face, the laches clock begins ticking as soon as the laws hit the books. "First injury" for facial unconstitutionality occurs when the law is enacted, as opposed to as-applied unconstitutionality, which requires a body of facts in some case to adjudicate. If Texas believed the laws of other states that regulated their balloting violated their state constitutions, and that this would injure Texas' rights in the Electoral College, they had a duty to begin action when the laws were enacted, not just after it became apparent that they would lose. Texas had a duty to bring action before the defendant States used those laws to conduct elections. The defense of latches is especially strong when suit is filed after the States certified their electoral votes. Eleventh-hour tactics after intentional delays almost always fail on the grounds that the other party is thereby prejudiced.
[snip]
Do you think there might be an attempt to form a breakaway 'Trump' party, like what happened with the Tea Party?Eh, I doubt it. US politics is downright lethal to third parties for presidential elections. No, I think they'll want to keep things under one roof as long as they can, so they can still have the "My grandfather voted Republican, my father voted Republican, so God dammit, I'm voting Republican."right wing voters as well as the Trumpets.
Thank All it was rejected, but this has been the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen.
They certainly are doing their level best, yes.
Given the colors shown over the last few weeks, I can see the GOP going the way of the Whigs and a new conservative party forming in opposition. Inertia is hard to overcome, but damn if the Trump wing isn’t doing their best to drive people out of the party.
And I bet he's fuming, JayUtah. The man is a wannabe autocrat. If it wasn't already taken,the title of his biography should be 'TheManOrangutan Who Would Be King'.
An insult to orangutan I know, including a very competent librarian. ;DAnd I bet he's fuming, JayUtah. The man is a wannabe autocrat. If it wasn't already taken,the title of his biography should be 'TheManOrangutan Who Would Be King'.
Coming soon from Netflix.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-12/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-donald-trump-us-elecion/12978044
Boom.
And here's what actual voter fraud looks like, what an asshat! ;DThe irony is so bloody thick you could make Cloud's Buster Sword out of it.
Florida attorney under investigation for registering to vote in Georgia, encouraging others to do the same
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/florida-attorney-under-investigation-registering-vote-georgia-encouraging-others-do-same/L6LTC2AHBFDMXPOTZKVMO5ESJQ/ (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/florida-attorney-under-investigation-registering-vote-georgia-encouraging-others-do-same/L6LTC2AHBFDMXPOTZKVMO5ESJQ/)
I had to look that up. Thick enough? I suppose - but it would be as sharp as a bowling ball I'm afraid!And here's what actual voter fraud looks like, what an asshat! ;DThe irony is so bloody thick you could make Cloud's Buster Sword out of it.
Florida attorney under investigation for registering to vote in Georgia, encouraging others to do the same
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/florida-attorney-under-investigation-registering-vote-georgia-encouraging-others-do-same/L6LTC2AHBFDMXPOTZKVMO5ESJQ/ (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/florida-attorney-under-investigation-registering-vote-georgia-encouraging-others-do-same/L6LTC2AHBFDMXPOTZKVMO5ESJQ/)
Gods, the first American Civil War started over whether states had the rights to allow people to own other people.
Will second start over whether a morally, ethically and quite often financially bankrupt former reality TV star gets to be president twice?
I think, regardless of the will of the states refusing to accept reality, a civil war like the last one is simply not possible. The standing army is too large now, and the generals hate their current CiC, who is completely dismissive of them and their accomplishments. This isn't even a "that damn hippie" situation. This is beyond that.
...presumably on Jan. 6th his toadies will try to get that accepted by the House and Senate. No chance of that happening, the only reason to keep going is for his narcissism and to keep his base riled up.
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-touted-imposing-martial-law-to-overturn-election-reports-2020-12
He doesn't just flirt with major abuses of power, he asks them out on dates.
I have to say I saw the stream of deplorable pardons coming, and I don't consider myself especially prescient for saying so. Of course he's saving the best for last: his children and their spouses. Why? Because you can't be prospectively pardoned. You can only be pardoned from crimes you have already committed. And they have until Jan. 20 to keep committing pardonable crimes. Then the coup de crap: can a President pardon himself?
I have to say I saw the stream of deplorable pardons coming, and I don't consider myself especially prescient for saying so. Of course he's saving the best for last: his children and their spouses. Why? Because you can't be prospectively pardoned. You can only be pardoned from crimes you have already committed. And they have until Jan. 20 to keep committing pardonable crimes. Then the coup de crap: can a President pardon himself?
The desire is to remind future holders of the office that the President is not above the law.
Is it true Trump can wage war in Iran and he can be "by force of law" 4 more years as president?
American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.
Is it true Trump can wage war in Iran and he can be "by force of law" 4 more years as president?
One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.
Indeed. It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing. Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria. Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.
One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.
Indeed. It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing. Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria. Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.
One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.
Indeed. It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing. Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria. Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.
None of these suits are meant to win on the merits. They’re a Bannon-esque PR strategy to flood the zone with bullshit, and they are working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him. Most everyone who voted for Trump are convinced Biden cheated, and the more these suits fail on "mere technicalities" like standing, jurisdiction, laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter), the more they’re convinced it’s a deep state plot.
Then you have the problem that Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are not well people (Wood’s partners have pretty much stated the man suffered some kind of mental break some years ago and is getting worse over time). Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.
One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.
Indeed. It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing. Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria. Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.
None of these suits are meant to win on the merits. They’re a Bannon-esque PR strategy to flood the zone with bullshit, and they are working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him. Most everyone who voted for Trump are convinced Biden cheated, and the more these suits fail on "mere technicalities" like standing, jurisdiction, laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter), the more they’re convinced it’s a deep state plot.
Then you have the problem that Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are not well people (Wood’s partners have pretty much stated the man suffered some kind of mental break some years ago and is getting worse over time). Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.
Over at UM there are some who think Wood is on to something, and that CJ Roberts's silence is proof of whatever Wood is saying about him. Can you encapsulate what's going on or point me to a website which does?
"So look, all I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state," Mr Trump said in the recording, insisting that there was "no way" he lost there.
[T]hese suits are...working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him.
...laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter)
Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.
Yet even that may be letting Plaintiffs off the hook too lightly. Their failure to make any effort to serve or formally notify any Defendant — even after reminder by the Court in its Minute Order — renders it difficult to believe that the suit is meant seriously. Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.
If ever there was an indication that ignorance of how the system works is rife in the US, I can't think of a better example than the notion that the Vice President has the power to overturn the election results. Do they really believe that an elected official would have the ultimate deciding power over the outcome of an election that determines his own office?!
[snip]
If ever there was an indication that ignorance of how the system works is rife in the US, I can't think of a better example than the notion that the Vice President has the power to overturn the election results. Do they really believe that an elected official would have the ultimate deciding power over the outcome of an election that determines his own office?!
[snip]
I know what you mean. Today I had an exchange like this with someone of whom it might be said of him The Trump Is Strong In Him. (Either that or he's a troll - a truly colossal troll, as he's been promoting ideas like this for years.)
Him: Pence has the power to reject EC votes that are disputed.
Me: Where's this power stated?
Him: The Constitution.
Me: Where in the Constitution?
Him: You look it up.
Me: [quoting references from the Constitution] It doesn't say that anywhere. Did I miss anything?
Him: Yes, you missed the bit where other people, including the President, say he has this power.
And then you ask the follow-on questions - so if the VP has the power to toss electoral votes, why didn't Biden toss the votes for Trump in '17 (because there were definitely shenanigans in that election)? Why didn't Gore proclaim himself President in 2001? Or Quayle in '93, or Mondale in '81?
And on and on and on.
People who claim to be the most passionate defenders of the Constitution tend to be the most profoundly ignorant of what it says.
People who claim to be the most passionate defenders of the Constitution tend to be the most profoundly ignorant of what it says.
People who claim to be the most passionate defenders of the Constitution tend to be the most profoundly ignorant of what it says.
My go-to example is the guy I talked to who demanded to know when they put "a well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment. He really, really didn't like my answer.
Do they really believe that an elected official would have the ultimate deciding power over the outcome of an election that determines his own office?!
[M]easures that made it easier for everyone to vote made it harder for Republicans to win...
On the plus side I did enjoy Scotland's First Minister utterly ridiculing the suggestion that Trump might visit his golf course in Scotland instead of attending Biden's inauguration yesterday. We're not letting anyone from the US into the UK at all, and we're in lockdown, so Trump can board any plane he likes but it won't be coming here.
And then you ask the follow-on questions - so if the VP has the power to toss electoral votes, why didn't Biden toss the votes for Trump in '17 (because there were definitely shenanigans in that election)? Why didn't Gore proclaim himself President in 2001? Or Quayle in '93, or Mondale in '81?
And on and on and on.
People who claim to be the most passionate defenders of the Constitution tend to be the most profoundly ignorant of what it says.
It's ridiculous. The people whose names are on the ballots should not be allowed to pick the winner.
There is a coup being attempted at this very moment in Washington DC, and it was encouraged by Donald Trump.
There is a coup being attempted at this very moment in Washington DC, and it was encouraged by Donald Trump. I want the people who thought I was overreacting when I sounded the alarm about Donald Trump for four years to tell me I was wrong to do so.
The Munich Beer Hall Putsch is in full swing, US style. Remember though, "protesters" not "terrorists"
There is a coup being attempted at this very moment in Washington DC, and it was encouraged by Donald Trump. I want the people who thought I was overreacting when I sounded the alarm about Donald Trump for four years to tell me I was wrong to do so.
I don't believe you were wrong. I think he is an American Hitler.
And reports that new articles of impeachment are being drawn up? Surely nothing can happen before Trump is kicked out of office on 20 Jan?
And reports that new articles of impeachment are being drawn up? Surely nothing can happen before Trump is kicked out of office on 20 Jan?
I think there is time for the House to impeach, but not for the trial in the Senate.
And reports that new articles of impeachment are being drawn up? Surely nothing can happen before Trump is kicked out of office on 20 Jan?
I think there is time for the House to impeach, but not for the trial in the Senate.
Ilhan Omar has tweeted that she's drawing up articles of impeachment. I see no reason why the Senate couldn't expedite, as this is pretty damned egregious.
And reports that new articles of impeachment are being drawn up? Surely nothing can happen before Trump is kicked out of office on 20 Jan?
I think there is time for the House to impeach, but not for the trial in the Senate.
Ilhan Omar has tweeted that she's drawing up articles of impeachment. I see no reason why the Senate couldn't expedite, as this is pretty damned egregious.
Just to remove him from office a week early? Not worth the effort even if 67 senators could be convinced. Removal by the 25th amendment is the more plausible mechanism should things further escalate.
First, given today’s actions, he cannot be allowed to remain office 14 more minutes, much less 14 more days. He is actively fomenting insurrection and sedition.
God forbid he decides to play with the football.
If impeachment is started whilst still holding the office of President (to hostage), can proceedings continue after he has left office? So they CAN prevent him running in 2024?
If impeachment is started whilst still holding the office of President (to hostage), can proceedings continue after he has left office? So they CAN prevent him running in 2024?
The sole result of impeachment conviction is removal from office. To the best of my knowledge that doesn't preclude running for president again, though that's obviously never been an issue under consideration before.
If impeachment is started whilst still holding the office of President (to hostage), can proceedings continue after he has left office? So they CAN prevent him running in 2024?
The sole result of impeachment conviction is removal from office. To the best of my knowledge that doesn't preclude running for president again, though that's obviously never been an issue under consideration before.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Therefore the prevention of holding another office is a possible penalty from conviction.
Where were the police?
Well, there was 3 of them manning this barricade......
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Therefore the prevention of holding another office is a possible penalty from conviction.
TIL; thanks for the info!
I'm not surprised if many of them had weapons, whether they truly intended to use them or not. Zip ties though . . . you only bring those if you intend to take prisoners, hostages.
This (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-mob-capitol-attack-jamil-1110820/) beautifully written Rolling Stones article also mentions the zip ties, though it doesn't mention a source, alas.
Where were the police?
Well, there was 3 of them manning this barricade......
This is attracting quite a bit of attention. Some are saying that since the perimeter had already been breached, the police decided to try to de-escalate. I'm not buying it, as the officer clearly opens the barricade for them. This could be easily interpreted as an invitation. It's one thing to de-escalate by avoiding confrontation. An open invitation is another.
I was shown a tweet that explained others' concern: "You don't ask where Miley [Cyrus] is when Hannah [Montana] is on stage." As I said months ago when describing the racial tension over the summer, the problem is that the police are a big part of the problem. Which is to say, not the police departments and their leaders generally, but the police unions. And as the media has told us, these have been infiltrated widely by white supremacists. Police unions wield most of the actual power in police organizations when it comes to conduct and discipline of officers. Given that some of the officers are alleged to have posed for photographs with the insurgents, I think the better interpretation is that we need to overhaul the Capitol Police.
I watched Stephen Colbert talk about the whole thing, and he was pissed. He showed clip after clip of security during peaceful marches, then how there was nothing as these people literally broke windows and waved guns around. Multiple people are now known to have died, which I'm pretty sure is more than died in the BLM protests despite the police violence at that time. Why start deescalating now? And do they think they will literally ever be able to use "in fear for our lives" now that there's footage of them literally running away from these people but still not shooting them?
Another interesting thing is this guy during the riot :
Another interesting thing is this guy during the riot :
The so-called QAnon Shaman. Because pictures of him have surfaced at protests by BLM etc., it is fueling the conspiracy theory that the storming of the Capitol was actually an "Antifa" false-flag operation. But the sign he carried at those other protests, usually cropped or disguised in right-wing representations, reads "QAnon Sent Me."
I'm guessing they don't show the picture of him shaking hands with Giuliani either.
Full disclosure: I have a close family member who is a retired police officer. As such, I have interacted with a number of their colleagues, and so my view is based on that as well as personal experiences with law enforcement.
That said, I 100% agree that the response here and during other riots (and yes, I will refer to the ones that turned into destroying businesses as riots, not demonstrations or protests) was very different, and suggests obvious reasons for that difference. And your point about the "fear for our lives" rationale is an interesting one, and one I am sure will be discussed in days to come.
However, I will say that deescalation when outnumbered as badly as they were is a good attempt to reduce conflict and avoid violence, including death.
And now people are pointing out the very real issue of cyber-security in the form of unsecured computers, networks, and email systems.
...and the small (e.g. USB drives).
I would bet, however, that IT has actually tried for years to put such measures in place, but have been overruled by the members because "it is annoying to have to keep logging in" or some such.
I also think that, given how unsettled the country is right now, taking such action may cause more disturbance and violence, 'proving' to those of that mindset that they were right all along, and that Pelosi, Schumer, the 'traitorous Republicans' etc. are stealing the country from Trump and from the people themselves. A ridiculous idea, obviously, but then again facts don't really come into play for those who are already thinking such things.
I have always wondered why, when crowds are of sufficient size that they could turn to mobs, they don't have fire trucks with water cannons waiting as barricades. There literally isn't a person out there who is strong enough to stay on their feet if they get hit by one of the highest pressure cannons, and they can be quite effective in getting a crowd to leave.
...there's just not enough time [for impeachment]."
Pence would be put in the position of, first, having to oversee the last 2 weeks of the train wreck, and second, hav[e] to consider pardoning Trump.
The only real concern I have is for any Executive Orders he might issue, but I believe those could be reversed by the next administration (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Yes, being thrown out in disgrace may well be the fitting end to his administration and legacy in the eyes of many, but it just strikes me as not being the thing that is needed right now.
Of course three officer is standing in front of a small crowd-control barrier will probably opt to stand down if confronted with dozens of angry, armed insurgents -- as you say, if not just from the sheer mass of the crowd press. The question is whether those positions were manned that way intentionally, in contravention of all prior practice and common sense, so that only token resistance would be offered. Of course I'm willing to see evidence of a simple foul-up, a miscommunication, or of unconventional wisdom. But for me, this administration, this Congress, and a great many in law enforcement have lost my faith in those things as a default explanation for failure. I want those people in charge testifying to Congress under oath about what the plan was to turn back the armed mob the President sent to invade the Capitol. The one we all knew advance was going to happen.
And the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is now permanently suspended. Finally. I wonder where he's going to vent his anger over this particular event.
I do feel sympathy with the front-line Capitol police officers' attempts to deescalate.
A charitable interpretation on their actions is that they delayed the crowd as long as necessary to secure the leadership (at at least one entrance USCP officers were pressed into the doors for about 20 minutes), but then let them come through rather than take further beating (over 50 officers were injured) or resorting to mass use of deadly force to drop everyone that crossed the threshold.
The failure is on the part of their leadership for putting the officers in that situation to begin with. And yes, they must account for this.
And the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is now permanently suspended. Finally. I wonder where he's going to vent his anger over this particular event.
The Washington Post has obtained video...
Parler?
Indeed, at what point do we compel people to respect fact, and how do we do it? We have allowed to come into existence an environment where people steep themselves in heavily-biased, often non-factual narratives, where neither they have the responsibility to conform them to reality, nor can the people who peddle them recklessly for profit be held accountable.
...and the small (e.g. USB drives).
For nearly all my work, we don't get to use those. When it's unavoidable, a numbered USB thumb drive is checked out to you from an inventory, used once for what is needful, then physically destroyed by the inventory officer. Being caught with portable storage in some areas of my work is a fire-on-the-spot offense and, in some cases, likely a criminal offense. And this is not especially uncommon, even outside my industry. My understanding, for example, is that HIPAA-qualified institutions have similar restrictions on the kinds of computer storage that are allowed around protected information.
Yeah, autolock is a standard and annoying feature. In some cases they seem to gimmick it so that things that would normally inhibit the lock (e.g., watching a video) don't work and you have to keep unlocking your workstation to resume your passive activity. Good on you IT-type guys for closing that loophole.
I have always wondered why, when crowds are of sufficient size that they could turn to mobs, they don't have fire trucks with water cannons waiting as barricades. There literally isn't a person out there who is strong enough to stay on their feet if they get hit by one of the highest pressure cannons, and they can be quite effective in getting a crowd to leave.
That's a long-standing practice in crowd control I've seen used elsewhere. The problem, usually, is that American firefighters generally don't want to get involved in altercations like this, and generally aren't trained in any way for crowds.
Another important consideration is that most defense scenarios incorporate depths or layers of defense. It's possible that the outside officers stood down knowing that the Members of Congress and others had been secured, and that the crowd would only be able to progress to the next layer of defense which, for all we know, might be much easier to defend and much more difficult to penetrate. The mob would be able to vent their anger on the building and the property, but not the protectees.
As far as Executive Orders go, yes, they can be rescinded by the next administration, subject to the protocols of administrative law. Last-minute, last-ditch orders are the easiest to rescind because little will have been done to activate them before the new administration arrives. But I don't see that as the only problem. The President might decide to pardon the dozens of people who have so far been arrested in the Capitol insurrection. And there would be little anyone could do to stop him or undo the action. What Donald J. Trump wants more than anything is power over people, so that they're compelled to feed his narcissism.
Less credible, but still not off the table, is the notion that the President still has sole authority to deploy the U.S. nuclear arsenal at any time for any reason. That doesn't mean he gets to push the button himself whenever he wants. There is still a military infrastructure that implements the actual deployment, and has rules and protocols to prevent an unhinged President from ending the world to suit his ego. In theory the President can fire whichever officers don't obey his commands. And last week I would have said that there are lines even fanatics won't cross in their devotion to Donald J. Trump, but I'm becoming less convinced as time goes on that my assessment of others' fanaticism is accurate. I'd like to think that no officer in that chain of command would obey an illegal order to nuke somebody. But I'd sleep more comfortably if Donald Trump simply didn't have the authority to test my theory.
And the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is now permanently suspended. Finally. I wonder where he's going to vent his anger over this particular event.
Apparently he tried to hijack the @POTUS account, which he never had full (or any) control of.Ha! Oh, that is precious indeed. Source?
I think that as well, and do have faith in the members of the military as a group not to follow such orders. And the systems in place to help prevent rogue personnel from carrying out such orders are pretty good even if they do still rely on humans.
I saw a headline that said that Nancy Pelosi was trying to do some things to restrict access to the nuclear football. Does she actually have that power?
Apparently he tried to hijack the @POTUS account, which he never had full (or any) control of.Ha! Oh, that is precious indeed. Source?
I'd like to think that no officer in that chain of command would obey an illegal order to nuke somebody. But I'd sleep more comfortably if Donald Trump simply didn't have the authority to test my theory.
I mean, he could try entering eight zeros. "It's an older code, sir, but it checks out." ;D
It is the duty of every serving member not to obey an illegal order, however determining what is legal and what is not can be challenging. For example, can the President order a first strike without approval of any other governmental body? I don't know, myself.
Agreed. The IT people do not get enough credit for what they do, nor are their warnings given enough attention.
Thank you; that is just hilarious! ;DApparently he tried to hijack the @POTUS account, which he never had full (or any) control of.Ha! Oh, that is precious indeed. Source?
My spouse, from across the couch. But I found this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-from-potus-account-after-suspension-they-got-deleted-2021-1
You could remind them of the Nuremberg Trials, and how effective "I was only obeying orders" was as a defence. And that the only option (other than refusing the order) takes them with it.I'd like to think that no officer in that chain of command would obey an illegal order to nuke somebody. But I'd sleep more comfortably if Donald Trump simply didn't have the authority to test my theory.
It is the duty of every serving member not to obey an illegal order, however determining what is legal and what is not can be challenging. For example, can the President order a first strike without approval of any other governmental body? I don't know, myself.
Thank you; that is just hilarious! ;DApparently he tried to hijack the @POTUS account, which he never had full (or any) control of.Ha! Oh, that is precious indeed. Source?
My spouse, from across the couch. But I found this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-from-potus-account-after-suspension-they-got-deleted-2021-1
The simple fact is, if you still believe there was voter fraud, you want to. It doesn't pass the most basic logic test--I keep asking why, if there was enough voter fraud to control the Presidency, it took until a runoff election to control the Senate. The easiest way to refute the idea that the election was fixed is to point out that Mitch McConnell will remain in the Senate. If you can believe in voter fraud after that's been pointed out to you, what would convince you?
Regarding the plastic ziptie handcuffs one of the seditionists has been identified as a retired Airforce Lieutenant ColonelReportedly there were people calling for Pence, and openly discussing "executing" him.
I mean, he could try entering eight zeros. "It's an older code, sir, but it checks out." ;D
Reportedly there were people calling for Pence, and openly discussing "executing" him.
The more I read and hear about this the more I get a lynch mob vibe, the most American of gatherings.
... But if we can't agree on basic human dignity, and the notion that facts matter, none of it will come to anything.This event has been quite disturbing, seeing and hearing large numbers of people ready and willing to attack, and potentially kill, elected officials, staff, police, and anyone who got in their way, because they believed their votes had been overturned. And they believed this because they'd been fed a non-stop torrent of lies by the President, by sycophantic elected officials and by various hangers on and media sources.
Like the denizens of Versailles, Trump can only encounter the natural world third or fourth-hand, in a tweet about the imminent signing of the 2018 farm bill embedded with a clip of him singing the Green Acres theme song at the Emmys...
The essential Trumpian conceit: playing a poor person's idea of what being rich is (having real linen!), a woke person's idea of racism (liking déclassé foods), a worker's idea of what a boss is (someone who fires people)...
Trump as president is always at his best in events like the annual White House Turkey Pardon, which are themselves a kind of meta-performance of the powers and function of the presidency belonging to a vanished and now impossibly corny-sounding era of good feelings between the quality liberal press and the inhabitant of the Oval Office...
This article comes closer to explaining Trump than anything else I've read:
https://theweek.com/articles/951933/how-camp-explains-trump
This article comes closer to explaining Trump than anything else I've read:
https://theweek.com/articles/951933/how-camp-explains-trump
Have you posted that before? It seems familiar. And I can't really disagree.
As the aftermath of the Capitol insurrection continues to deliver surprises, I'm amused to see how many of the participants are aghast and upset at actually being held accountable for their actions. They live-streamed a crime spree that included the gruesome murder of a police officer! What did they think would happen?
Oopsie. I may have, yes.
I'm interested at the backpedalling that's happening - oh, it wasn't that bad, there wasn't much theft (while ignoring the way they trashed the rooms they got into).
IANAL so I don't know what the rules are for proving incitement in a court case, but I don't think he said anything encouraging violence.
Of course, having said that, the other frustrating thing is the way Trump can convince people to do things for him with no intention of rewarding them for having done it - "Let's walk up to the Capitol and convince those Republican congress people to <*wink*> do the right thing," followed by "The people who were violent should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
While it gave some interesting insights into the appeal of Trump, I think the above article underestimates, sharply, how much lasting damage he's done to American democracy.
Aye. As I said when he was elected, he fanned the flames, he manned the bellows to ride the updraft all the way to the Oval Office, but the fire was there before. Just like virulent antisemitism was part of European life long before the Nazis came along.While it gave some interesting insights into the appeal of Trump, I think the above article underestimates, sharply, how much lasting damage he's done to American democracy.
Yes. And we have to keep reminding ourselves that this not just Donald J. Trump. Trump is the latest product, and most egregious symptom, of a social and political system that has drifted collectively off into the weeds. The deplorable elements of American society that have been on display this week didn't spontaneously come into existence when Trump was elected. They've always been there, since before our Civil War. Trump and his enablers simply legitimized them and continue to use them for their own political ends.
What did they think would happen?
This is why people quit doing business with him in New York and why he went packing to Florida. But also yes, how he can keep convincing a new crop of rubes to fling themselves off cliffs for him is a mystery.
They thought they would be celebrated as heroes and patriots, that there would be parades, and statues would be erected in their honor.
They never once thought that they would be arrested, or added to the no-fly list (https://twitter.com/RayRedacted/status/1348388601118273537?s=19).
On a happier note, let's recognize the Capitol Police officer who lured the mob away from the Senate chamber. I guess we know his name, but we're not repeating it too often to keep him safe. You know the Gru image meme? "He singlehandedly protected the Senate chamber." "He singlehandedly protected the Senate chamber." We really need to find out why the Capitol security force was so understaffed.
Bush started the divide, obama made it worse and Trump made it reach criticality.
The media is also to blame.
Sides are maximum opposing instead of balancing each other out and offering two different views.
I see no way out without violence.
A parlimantary system where the fate of an entire nation doesn't rest on the whims of a single person. Multiple parties that need to form a coalition and work together instead of against each other.
I'd seen the video a couple of days ago, but obviously with no knowledge of the Capitol's layout I had no idea of the significance of his action.
The two-party system is failing.
The media is also to blame.
I see no way out without violence.
A parlimantary system where the fate of an entire nation doesn't rest on the whims of a single person. Multiple parties that need to form a coalition and work together instead of against each other.
The USA splits up into 2, maybe 3 nations. Each having one side of the extreme.
Maybe also several completely independent states.
Federal government may be terribly slow and expensive but it doesn't **** around with infrastructure critical to tens of millions of people..
(Most of the time)
Fox News has been dumbing down their audience, making them more gullible, and feeding them conspiracy theories for almost 25 years.
People who live outside of the United States understand that even the most left-leaning American politicians (ie. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) would be considered centrists in a lot of other countries. The only reason people fear them is because people on the right have been fearmongering. They aren't even remotely "radical".
...for the people responsible for the failed coup to be severely punished
...for the "checks & balances" to be fortified (no, the President is not above the law)...
But for the foreseeable future I think the Democratic Party is your only chance for a stable government.
What did they think would happen?
They thought they would be celebrated as heroes and patriots, that there would be parades, and statues would be erected in their honor.
They never once thought that they would be arrested, or added to the no-fly list (https://twitter.com/RayRedacted/status/1348388601118273537?s=19).
I bet they didn't expect to be charged at all but recognized as heroes.What did they think would happen?
They thought they would be celebrated as heroes and patriots, that there would be parades, and statues would be erected in their honor.
They never once thought that they would be arrested, or added to the no-fly list (https://twitter.com/RayRedacted/status/1348388601118273537?s=19).
They thought that their actions would magically keep Trump as president, even after January 20, and that he would pardon them all.
A parlimantary system where the fate of an entire nation doesn't rest on the whims of a single person. Multiple parties that need to form a coalition and work together instead of against each other.
Moscow Mitch has far too much power for one man to hold... in many ways, he is even more powerful than POTUS himself.
Bush started the divide, obama made it worse and Trump made it reach criticality.
I wouldn't say Obama made it worse. It was the inability of racists to accept a black President that made things worse.QuoteThe media is also to blame.
Fox News has been dumbing down their audience, making them more gullible, and feeding them conspiracy theories for almost 25 years. They spun bad news about Bush & Trump, or failed to cover those stories at all. They made mountains out of molehills when covering Obama, or invented controversies out of nothing ("OMG, Obama used a selfie stick!"). I'm still waiting for Obama to declare Shariah law and take your guns away.QuoteSides are maximum opposing instead of balancing each other out and offering two different views.
People who live outside of the United States understand that even the most left-leaning American politicians (ie. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) would be considered centrists in a lot of other countries. The only reason people fear them is because people on the right have been fearmongering. They aren't even remotely "radical".QuoteI see no way out without violence.
Then your vision is impaired.QuoteA parlimantary system where the fate of an entire nation doesn't rest on the whims of a single person. Multiple parties that need to form a coalition and work together instead of against each other.
Multiple parties aren't all they're cracked up to be. Sure, they give voters more choices, but they often lead to unpopular parties gaining power. It could lead to a fascist party gaining power just because the 3 safer parties on the left split the vote enough to not give any of them a majority.
The solution to America's problem is not to change it's entire form of government, or to split into 2-50 separate countries. The solution is for the Republican party to be utterly wiped out and made toxic, for the people responsible for the failed coup to be severely punished, for the "checks & balances" to be fortified (no, the President is not above the law), and for a new 2nd party to take it's place. If that new party follows the constitution and obeys the laws, they might someday gain enough clout to be more than just an opposition party. But for the foreseeable future I think the Democratic Party is your only chance for a stable government.
I have zero patience for racist right-wing Trump sympathizers right now, apollo16uvc, so maybe you should just keep your thoughts on this topic to yourself.Does attaching so many terms to a large group of people you politically disagree with make it easier for you?
I have zero patience for racist right-wing Trump sympathizers right now, apollo16uvc, so maybe you should just keep your thoughts on this topic to yourself.Does attaching so many terms to a large group of people you politically disagree with make it easier for you?
Maybe I'm not even right, but try to see faults in both sides.
As a typical American your post shows no nuance or gray areas. You are either with us or against us.
Perhaps that is why you suggest doing away with the republics, so you don't have to deal with any politicians that make you think about your values, policies and principles.
Some people SUFFERED during Obama's terms.
These people saw trump as an outcome.
Lets not forget people also wanted a vote recount when Hillary lost.
Lets not forget people also wanted a vote recount when Hillary lost. A pity so many people only seem to have a 3-4 year memory when it comes to politics.
...
...
Lets not forget people also wanted a vote recount when Hillary lost. A pity so many people only seem to have a 3-4 year memory when it comes to politics.
...No one has developed a megaton-class warhead in like 60 years. They are obsolete. Let alone 100 mt. And putting that on a torpedo would be completely pointless; very large warheads are (horribly) lethal at long range due to infrared radiation from the aerial fireball. Nuclear-capable torpedoes are not new or a result of Obama's foreign policy; Shkval was developed in the 1960's and the US Mk45 was in service by then as well.
In our system of Government (which is not perfect by any means) the leader of the governing party is also the leader of the house and the country. It sounds like a powerful position, but in terms of government, it is actually far less powerful that your president. The Prime Minister is an active member of the Parliament, and is just one of the ~120 votes - there is no one person who can hold up legislation from being voted on, and there is no power of veto if the PM doesn't like what has been passed by the legislature. The Prime Minister is directly answerable to Parliament for his/her behaviour.
Of course, the most important feature of the Westminster style election is the beauty pageant declaration. The site of the Prime Minister standing on a temporary stage in the local sports hall next to a dozen other fellow candidates including some dressed as clowns while the returning officer reads the results just like happens for every other no-name MP; it sends a message that the PM is just another commoner. You're not above anyone.
In our system of Government (which is not perfect by any means) the leader of the governing party is also the leader of the house and the country. It sounds like a powerful position, but in terms of government, it is actually far less powerful that your president. The Prime Minister is an active member of the Parliament, and is just one of the ~120 votes - there is no one person who can hold up legislation from being voted on, and there is no power of veto if the PM doesn't like what has been passed by the legislature. The Prime Minister is directly answerable to Parliament for his/her behaviour.
Of course, the most important feature of the Westminster style election is the beauty pageant declaration. The site of the Prime Minister standing on a temporary stage in the local sports hall next to a dozen other fellow candidates including some dressed as clowns while the returning officer reads the results just like happens for every other no-name MP; it sends a message that the PM is just another commoner. You're not above anyone.
Might want to refresh your own memory. Hillary conceded the morning after election day, in an election far closer than 2020.
Might want to refresh your own memory. Hillary conceded the morning after election day, in an election far closer than 2020. She left the spotlight and Obama urged unity. There is simply no equivalency to be had between the 2017 and 2021 transitions.
I just mean, is he actually out of office now, or what is the next step in the process. I'm not really sure. I read CBC News and it says 10 Republicans votes for impeachment but it also says something about a trial after he's done his term in a week or so. What's the next step I guess is what I was asking and what possible outcomes may arise?The House impeaching him is the equivalent of a grand jury indictment, now the Senate will have a trial, followed by a vote to convict him or not, requiring a 2/3 supermajority to convict and remove him from office.
Cheers
Peter
Indeed the election-results bits of Monty Python are some of my favorites.
As I've said, politics is now just a game unto itself, serving only itself, and without much regard to governance and integrity.
Indeed the election-results bits of Monty Python are some of my favorites.
It was Blackadder but still classic British comedy so I'll let you have that one... ;)QuoteAs I've said, politics is now just a game unto itself, serving only itself, and without much regard to governance and integrity.
It's the same here in Britain too. I may have said this here before but someone a few years ago made an observation that seems to fit, which is that it is a fairly recent phenomenon in Britain that you can study politics and become a politician as a career move without ever doing anything else. Not all that long ago politicians had experience of life in other areas, and several had other jobs, which is why Parliament sits in the afternoon: they'd have been working elsewhere in the morning (this was before working time regulations limited how many hours you could work and how many jobs you could hold down at once). Now we have people appointed to be minister of something they have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the workings of. I don't recall the last time we had a Minister for Education who had ever worked in education at any level, for example.
[snip]
Part of the problem is that for 5 years the UK had a totally ineffective opposition under Corbyn. I think that that is a worse dilemma than politicians holding life experience TBH. It allowed a cabinet of useless populists to get their hands on power and railroad through some of the most damaging legislation in generations.
If convicted, he may also be precluded from holding office in the future.As far as I know this is not true. The Constitution allows a person to be elected twice. https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/would-president-trump-actually-lose-anything-from-impeachment/
“The Former Presidents Act provides ex-presidents with a number of benefits, including a $200k annual pension, a travel allowance, lifetime Secret Service detail, and more,” he says. “However, the president would lose some of these things if the Senate voted to remove him from office before Jan. 20. He would lose the pension and other monetary benefits, but not the Secret Service protection.”
If convicted, he may also be precluded from holding office in the future.As far as I know this is not true. The Constitution allows a person to be elected twice. https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/would-president-trump-actually-lose-anything-from-impeachment/
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
although AFAIK that only requires a simple majority.
Indeed the election-results bits of Monty Python are some of my favorites.
It was Blackadder but still classic British comedy so I'll let you have that one... ;)
It was Blackadder but still classic British comedy so I'll let you have that one... ;)
...which means the ministers have to be constantly on top of their portfolios.
It was Blackadder but still classic British comedy so I'll let you have that one... ;)
Which also has some enjoyable election bits. PItt the Embryo?
Indeed the election-results bits of Monty Python are some of my favorites.
It was Blackadder but still classic British comedy so I'll let you have that one... ;)
I caught it!
I can criticize every Democratic leader of my lifetime. The difference between me and every Trump supporter I've encountered so far is that not a one of them seem to be able to point to anything they don't like about him that they don't follow with "but both sides."
although AFAIK that only requires a simple majority.
Correct. In the 1936 trial of the impeached Judge Robert Archibald, the Senate determined that, pursuant to an earlier trial of a different judge, the order to remove from office was mandatory upon conviction, but that the order to disqualify from future office was a severable discretionary question and subject only to a simple majority vote, which in Judge Archibald's case, carried and resulted in both his dismissal from office and his disqualification under Art. II § 3. (Cannon. Precedents of the House of Representatives § 512)
...which means the ministers have to be constantly on top of their portfolios.
You missed a word there, Pete: THEORETICALLY they have to be on top of their portfolios. As we both know, that is often not the case.
There is an armed protest scheduled at our state capitol building on Sunday.
There is an armed protest scheduled at our state capitol building on Sunday.
A whopping 15 people showed up. There were about 200 National Guardsmen there, backing up the normal garrison of a couple dozen state police officers. The worst that happened was that people in passing cars yelled things out the window. No attempt made to enter the capitol.
Maybe the message is sinking in: you're not "patriots" saving the country from itself.
President Trump is refusing to pay Rudy Giuliani's legal fees.
We apparently had about a hundred people at ours, mostly protesting mask restrictions.
As to not paying his bills, well, it's hardly news.
Confirmed now that the Marines are deployed to DC and have full combat gear.
The National Guardsmen in the city were disarmed due to Democrat paranoia
Accepting it may sound naive but from my position as an outsider with very limited knowledge of US processes, it doesn’t seem at all surprising that there should be a military presence from across the US at the inauguration of a new Commander-in-Chief of the US military, regardless of any other circumstances that may surround this particular inauguration.
Accepting it may sound naive but from my position as an outsider with very limited knowledge of US processes, it doesn’t seem at all surprising that there should be a military presence from across the US at the inauguration of a new Commander-in-Chief of the US military, regardless of any other circumstances that may surround this particular inauguration.
I think what apollo16uvc is implying is that the Marines are there for some kind of nefarious reason. I want his source for that, otherwise it just sounds like the same kind of conspiracy theory nonsense that is destroying the United States.
People ask me "what is the harm of just letting people believe in their conspiracy theories?". This. This is the harm of letting people believe conspiracy theories. It starts with flat Earthers and moon hoax believers, and then it evolves into large numbers of people believing that wearing a mask to prevent the spread of a virus is oppression, and that the results of an election are fraudulent. And before you know it, half the country thinks Hillary Clinton runs a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant.
Accepting it may sound naive but from my position as an outsider with very limited knowledge of US processes, it doesn’t seem at all surprising that there should be a military presence from across the US at the inauguration of a new Commander-in-Chief of the US military, regardless of any other circumstances that may surround this particular inauguration.
I think what apollo16uvc is implying is that the Marines are there for some kind of nefarious reason. I want his source for that, otherwise it just sounds like the same kind of conspiracy theory nonsense that is destroying the United States.
People ask me "what is the harm of just letting people believe in their conspiracy theories?". This. This is the harm of letting people believe conspiracy theories.
As a outsider it almost seems you are expecting something to happen tomorrow, do you all think that is the case?
As a outsider it almost seems you are expecting something to happen tomorrow, do you all think that is the case?
I think a large percentage of the adult population is a lost cause. You'll never undo the damage done to their ability to separate fact from fiction. But maybe with improvements to the education system and stricter laws against knowingly spreading misinformation there is hope for future generations.
But maybe with improvements to the education system...
...and stricter laws against knowingly spreading misinformation there is hope for future generations.
As a outsider it almost seems you are expecting something to happen tomorrow, do you all think that is the case?
There are way too many of those people out there, they are organized, and they have been emboldened by Trump, Hawley, Cruz, and the entire right-wing infotainment complex. They are no longer afraid to show their faces. They are no longer afraid to say the quiet parts out loud.
As a outsider it almost seems you are expecting something to happen tomorrow, do you all think that is the case?
One lesson to learn from the Capitol attack is that we seem to have lost the ability to predict accurately whether something will happen. Do we expect something? Not necessarily. But with a city full of important Americans, foreign dignitaries, and ostensibly crazy (and armed) conspiracy theorists and Trump loyalists, if something happens we certainly want to be able to say we deployed more than three guys in windbreakers and some crowd-control barriers.
What's most deplorable about this is that it's the first time in my recollection of American history where we have not had a peaceful transfer of power. Part of fixing America is restoring the rest of the world's faith in American democracy. That, I fear, will take decades.
I think a large percentage of the adult population is a lost cause. You'll never undo the damage done to their ability to separate fact from fiction. But maybe with improvements to the education system and stricter laws against knowingly spreading misinformation there is hope for future generations.
There's a problem with that - who's going to pass those laws? Who's going to improve the education system? I mean, we're where we are because of the people we've elected over the last 40 years, and one election isn't going to wipe all of that away. Most of this work has to happen at the state level (especially with education), where the nutbars are the strongest.
The educational system is just as highly politicized in America as everything else here. The Republicans have figured out that well-educated people don't vote for them. So they have had little desire to improve basic education.
Those laws would immediately face harsh First Amendment scrutiny.
These idiots (I mean people like Sen. Cruz, Pres. Trump, and others) have no idea how [expletive] dangerous those people are, and always have been.
Yeah, even as I wrote that I thought it would never fly in the United States.
I just believe that "freedom of speech" shouldn't include intentionally government officials lying about election fraud. I get that not everyone knows they are spreading misinformation, but it starts somewhere.
I really hope that Ted Cruz (and the others) watched that video of the insurrectionists on the Senate floor looking through his papers.
They have created a monster that they have lost control of.
There are way too many of those people out there, they are organized, and they have been emboldened by Trump, Hawley, Cruz, and the entire right-wing infotainment complex. They are no longer afraid to show their faces. They are no longer afraid to say the quiet parts out loud.
The exposure and emboldenment is really all that's new. There have always been way too many of "that sort" of people out there, which is either a cause or a symptom or both for never having really healed after the Civil War. And they've always been organized, since the Civil War and onward. They just went underground starting in the late 1800s and have stayed there under various names. The Trump administration and all the enablers you name, and more, let them back up to the surface and whipped them up by calling them "patriots" and "fine people."
These idiots (I mean people like Sen. Cruz, Pres. Trump, and others) have no idea how [expletive] dangerous those people are, and always have been. Prior to the Trump Administration, the only thing protecting us from them was the general belief in the United States that extremism and racial supremacy were Bad Things. Sure, you could be your racist angry self among the Good Ol' Boys in your town. But you just "knew" you couldn't do that if you were going to head over to Disney World or elsewhere out in public. Now -- thanks to these feckless idiots -- you can drive your Confederate-flagged truck down the freeway, waving guns out the window, and terrorizing your political opponents with impunity. That's what these people have always longed to do. This isn't new. It's just been Generally Frowned Upon until now.
Oh, sure, they wrap themselves in the flag. But then without hesitation they beat innocent people to death with them. They ally with law enforcement, but then quickly show how little "blue lives" matter to them. It's never about the prosaically noble causes they espouse. They're angry, racist thugs. That's all they've ever been, and that's all they will ever be, no matter what empty, patriotic-sounding platitudes they sloganize. But because certain politicians are just profoundly ignorant of anything except the privileged environments they've grown up in, they think it's all just a game. They think they can dog-whistle these groups by stumping their cover stories and praising their efforts, and that no harm will come from it.
American politics has devolved to the point where the people who practice it literally think there are no actual consequences. The economy will somehow always be strong. Poor people will somehow always be docile and subservient. People with the wrong color skin will somehow always stay where they're put. America will somehow always be great. Violent racists will somehow always stay safely just under the surface. They'll always be re-elected so long as they promise to "own the libs." And, laughing all the way to their capitols, they'll always be free to exploit whatever presents itself, with no accountability. I believe it starts with holding politicians accountable. Who's going to do that? Other politicians? Voters who look at these decisions as no more consequential that a sports tournament?
I don't think, however, that there ever has been a time when so many have been so open, so organised and in such huge numbers.
[People] are using these platforms to spread targeted messages of chaos and distrust.
Trump's pardoning of Steve Bannon is a terrible decision. Personally I think that Bannon is one of the most dangerous men on the planet.
Let's hope this comes back to bite him in the behind. Now pardoned, Steve Bannon cannot plead the Fifth Amendment for evidence he might given on any federal charges against Donald Trump that might involve Bannon's exculpated crimes.
He is truly an odious man. And consider what he was pardoned for. Bannon told Trump's followers he was taking up a collection to fund the border wall with Mexico privately. And then used the money for other purposes. Now normally if I had a group of followers, and someone was doing something that might alienate them from me, like using my name and reputation to defraud them, I'd normally be very anxious to stop that happening, so it would protect my reputation. Former President Donald Trump has done this to the effect of condoning the fraud. But of course his followers probably won't believe that. They'll argue that Bannon was being unjustly prosecuted and that he's a great American patriot and hero, and here, have some more of my money.
Is that likely? I mean, was that a 'tactical' mistake by Trump? So he cannot claim self-incrimination but he'd just lie anyway, wouldn't he?
Apropos of absolutely nothing, but Bannon always looks like a guy whose liver is about to give up the ghost.
I have mixed feelings about Trump not being there.
There is genuine concern that some cult members will harm themselves today. I only hope they decide not to harm others in the process.
At least he didn't blanket pardon the insurrectionists. That was a low-but-not-entirely-zero probability event, and that would have been bad.
Let's hope this comes back to bite him in the behind. Now pardoned, Steve Bannon cannot plead the Fifth Amendment for evidence he might given on any federal charges against Donald Trump that might involve Bannon's exculpated crimes.
Is that likely? I mean, was that a 'tactical' mistake by Trump? So he cannot claim self-incrimination but he'd just lie anyway, wouldn't he?
[snip]
Trump's pardoning of Steve Bannon is a terrible decision
[snip]
I would hope that the pardon doesn't protect him from future crimes, such as perjury. (even if his lies are regarding the crimes he was pardoned for).
I'm surprised he didn't pardon family members, less so that he didn't pardon Rudi Giuliani.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, but Bannon always looks like a guy whose liver is about to give up the ghost.
At least he didn't blanket pardon the insurrectionists. That was a low-but-not-entirely-zero probability event, and that would have been bad.
As if he cares a single iota about any of them.
But at least now they can't testify against him, if they choose to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Not that the rank and file insurgents likely would have any damaging testimony. But if it is suspected that the Capitol assault was organized with the cooperation of members of the administration, that would be some dynamite.
Given that some of them are giving television interviews saying, "yeah, I was there, and I did it because the President told us to," along with all the selfies and livestreams they posted to social media, I don’t think the Fifth Amendment is on their radar. They genuinely do not believe that they or Trump did anything wrong.
Their attorneys have their work cut out for them.
A lot of relatively affluent white people are about to be introduced to the uglier side of the American criminal justice system, and they aren’t going to understand.
QuoteA lot of relatively affluent white people are about to be introduced to the uglier side of the American criminal justice system, and they aren’t going to understand.
Not only will it be shock because they think they're innocent, but probably also a shocking discovery that the wholesome, brave image that law enforcement wants to portray in general largely vanishes when you are accused and convicted of a crime and being dealt with by them. Yes, Trumpsquatch finally got his organic num-nums. But I agree a large number of other people are going to realize they really aren't as special as they thought they were, and that what those other folks were saying about police misconduct wasn't as farfetched as it sounded at first.
But on the plus side, there is the potential for meaningful police reform if someone other than the BLM community registers complaints for the same alleged behavior.
Self-styled militia members from Virginia, Ohio and other states made plans to storm the U.S. Capitol days in advance of the Jan. 6 attack, and then communicated in real time as they breached the building on opposite sides and talked about hunting for lawmakers, according to court documents filed Tuesday.
“We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan,” co-defendant Jessica Watkins, 38, an Army veteran, said while the breach was underway, according to court documents.
“You are executing citizen’s arrest. Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason, election fraud,” a man replied, according to audio recordings of communications between Watkins and others during the incursion.
Some messages, according to the FBI, included, “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down,” and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps.” Another message read: “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,” the FBI added.
The more that comes out about the attack on the Capitol, the more it sounds like there was a serious and organised attempt to harm or kill legislators. Some of the information here is very worrying :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/conspiracy-oath-keeper-arrest-capitol-riot/2021/01/19/fb84877a-5a4f-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.htmlQuoteSelf-styled militia members from Virginia, Ohio and other states made plans to storm the U.S. Capitol days in advance of the Jan. 6 attack, and then communicated in real time as they breached the building on opposite sides and talked about hunting for lawmakers, according to court documents filed Tuesday.Quote“We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan,” co-defendant Jessica Watkins, 38, an Army veteran, said while the breach was underway, according to court documents.
“You are executing citizen’s arrest. Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason, election fraud,” a man replied, according to audio recordings of communications between Watkins and others during the incursion.
And possibly most disturbing, given the reference :QuoteSome messages, according to the FBI, included, “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down,” and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps.” Another message read: “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,” the FBI added.
From what I understand, there are still a lot of these so-called "militia" groups around, and I doubt we've seen the last of their attempts to disrupt the new administration.
[snip]
There's an interesting sub-Reddit going on at the moment: https://www.reddit.com/r/byebyejob/ Lots of very well paid people suddenly finding themselves out of very good jobs. So far I've spotted a lawyer, a CEO, our absent-minded friend above and a woman outed by her daughter. Schadenfreude and karma appears to be a real thing!
It’s amazing the lack of self-awareness some of these conspiracy theorists have. I’m in the middle of a Twitter row with one who honestly thinks a ballot-counting machine is just a big dumb brick that looks for a mark on a piece of paper. The fact he tweeted from a device that can do better scanning and checking than that seems to have escaped him. Now I admit I don’t know exactly how those machines work but intuitively I have the feeling they’d have a bit more sophisticated workings than just looking for a dark mark somewhere. Like barcode checksum digits on the ballot papers maybe?
Isn't it sad that Trump's former presidency is still the one we're talking about the most?
This shit is going to ripple.
The point, surely, is that literally every method of voting has ‘room for shenanigans’. Unless I go to a polling station and literally point to my chosen candidate in front of everyone there is always a step in the process where someone else has control of my ballot. I drop it in a box and I trust that the responsible people then deliver that ballot and count it correctly. The problem is that ugly now we are supposed to believe that appropriate measures to check the votes are properly counted have not been put in place for one system while at the same time accepting the other as above criticism.
Mr Twitter has literally just argued that the electronic ballot counting machines are so simple they’re easily fooled while the Dominion machines are so sophisticated they are... also easily fooled. 🤦♂️
Yes, and if I'm reading it right, Trump is going to keep hold of the Republican party, meaning the impeachment trial is likely to fail, but hopefully the ban on holding office in the future will take effect.
Isn't it sad that Trump's former presidency is still the one we're talking about the most?
This shit is going to ripple.
I get the impression that Trump has shown Republican members of Congress how strong his hold on Republican voters is, meaning his threat to start the Patriot Party has teeth.
It's interesting to contemplate how much influence he'll retain if he somehow ends up in jail.
Yes, and if I'm reading it right, Trump is going to keep hold of the Republican party, meaning the impeachment trial is likely to fail, but hopefully the ban on holding office in the future will take effect.
I get the impression that Trump has shown Republican members of Congress how strong his hold on Republican voters is, meaning his threat to start the Patriot Party has teeth. The Republican members of Congress consequently fold as they did during Trump's Presidency because they know he can end their political careers if they don't toe his line. I therefore suspect the trial vote in the Senate will be similar to the last impeachment.
So even if Trump can't be a Presidential candidate in the future, he'll have a lot of influence in choosing the 2024 candidate.
It's interesting to contemplate how much influence he'll retain if he somehow ends up in jail.
Indeed, impeachments are not criminal trials where statute and precedent apply.
To be fair, he's always believed he can do whatever the hell he wants and no one can touch him. Historically, this is not the first nor second time he's pretty well gotten away with it.
I wonder if it would be better if impeachment trials were decided by a jury of citizens instead of Senators?
Several Republicans have openly admitted being afraid of their base. As this proved they should be. But caving in to them wasn't the correct solution. I'm just hoping that the majority of voters--who support the process--realize that their leadership is unethical cowards and votes them out.
I've moved the discussion of the current emergency in Texas and the power grid to a separate topic: The future of the electric grid (https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1840.0)
The Framers understood partisanship. I think they felt that today's hyperpartisanship would not arise. Or if it did, the "lordly" decorum of the Senate would reign it in.
But to me, the kicker is that the current and previous two administrations have had a common policy, which is that foreigners (unless they have been lawfully admitted to the United States) have no rights, including the right to be alive. A legal researcher for the Obama administration spelled its reasoning out pretty clearly. The United States is at war with an unspecified enemy. The entire world is a battlefield. So if you are a non-American located on this battlefield, then you are a combatant. And combatants may be killed.
Do you have a source for this claim?
Is it true Trump can wage war in Iran and he can be "by force of law" 4 more years as president?
Oh, God, who’s making that ridiculous claim?
At this point, he should find it impossible to get delivery, much less hire a lawyer.
The Bengals can still win if Mike Pence has the courage.
What is described here, is way beyond normal.
This is Lord Meron of Nabol in his last days.I have no idea what any of that means.
This is Lord Meron of Nabol in his last days.I have no idea what any of that means.
What is described here, is way beyond normal.
Trump has been beyond normal for a long time. That he farts and soils himself is little more than another titillation in a festering pile of disgraces and outrages. The shocking this is that he still appeals to so many of his cult. Very dangerous times lie ahead for America if this monster grasps power again.This is Lord Meron of Nabol in his last days.I have no idea what any of that means.
"Old men fart" shocker.
If Trump gets into power again, then his farts will be the very least of America's worries. "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving the cross."
But to me, the kicker is that the current and previous two administrations have had a common policy, which is that foreigners (unless they have been lawfully admitted to the United States) have no rights, including the right to be alive. A legal researcher for the Obama administration spelled its reasoning out pretty clearly. The United States is at war with an unspecified enemy. The entire world is a battlefield. So if you are a non-American located on this battlefield, then you are a combatant. And combatants may be killed.
Do you have a source for this claim?
The most obvious source in support of this "claim" would be the words and writings of the officials of the three administrations cited.
We're not in the days of Kennedy and Nixon, when assassination of a foreigner would be a covert operation. They brag about it on television these days. Calling this a "claim" is a bit like referring to "Joe Biden is the president of the US" as a "claim". (OK, some people do dispute that particular "claim". But no matter.)
This may take a while, but we can go a little at a time. Let's start with this article.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
Back from 2003, this one clearly would not have anything to do with the Obama or Trump administrations, but we'll get there eventually.
Apart from the wealth of information contained in the article, one might note the quote from then vice-President Dick Cheney, in which he states that foreigners who enter the United States illegally and conduct terrorist operations killing thousands of innocent Americans, do not deserve the "guarantees" and "safeguards" that would apply to American citizens in the "normal judicial process".
Well that certainly shows that I had a serious misunderstanding of the judicial process. I thought the function thereof was to determine who were and who were not the criminals. So how do you know whether someone conducted a terrorist operation killing thousands of Americans? I thought you had a trial, and a prosecution presented evidence, a defence disputed that evidence, and then a judge and/or jury would indicate whether they found the evidence sufficiently compelling to conclude that the person had indeed conducted such a terrorist operation. In other words, you followed the "normal judicial process".
But apparently, some unspecified party has the ability to determine, outside of the normal judicial process, who has and who has not conducted terrorist operations, and who therefore is and is not entitled to the "guarantees" and "safeguards" of the normal judicial process. The purpose of which is now unclear to me, since it seems that we have been able to determine the accused's innocent or guilt somehow outside of the normal judicial process, so why is there a need for a judicial process at all? Does this apply to all kinds of crimes? Why should murderers, kidnappers, or paedophiles enjoy the "guarantees" of "safeguards" of the judicial process? If we can determine their guilt or innocence outside of the judicial process, well, just throw them into prison if they are guilty, and let them go if they are not. Why do courts even exist? Vice-President Cheney also does not seem to have explained why American citizens who have conducted terrorist operations should have such guarantees and safeguards, but foreigners should not; perhaps it is easier to determine whether or not foreigners are terrorists, than it is for Americans. I'm not really sure. Perhaps vice-President Cheney has explained all this somewhere else.
In the 1940s, the Americans were among the allies who opposed Churchill's plans to have summary executions for Nazi leaders. Apparently the American government has become more omniscient; it could not then determine the guilt or innocence of Nazi leaders without a judicial process, but it can now determine the guilt or innocence of foreign accused terrorists.
But vice-President Cheney wisely applies his doctrine only to foreigners; Americans accused of terrorism must go through the normal judicial process. This seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Don't you think that Americans who support the government's position, that it should be able to deal with accused foreign terrorists outside of the normal judicial process, would also support the government's right to deal with them, outside of the normal judicial process? Or do Americans only support the government's right to imprison or execute other people without trial?
More coming on the rights (or lack thereof) of dirty foreigners, in the eyes of not only the Bush administration, but the succeeding administrations. But I'll give everyone a chance to have a look at this article first.
Donald Trump has been found guilty of falsifying business records, a felony that could result in prison time.
Anywhere I can follow live results?
It's second verse, same, or worse, than the first! King Donald the Orange is crowned.
May any gods out there help us all.
Well, he pardoned his fellow insurrectionists, which is disturbing on several counts. The man doesn't reward loyalty for its own sake. He'll punish disloyalty, the Great Leader must be obeyed in all things, but discards his toys when done with them, which to me suggests he still has use for them.For the next election, no doubt. When he illegally tries to become President for a third time (having done something dodgy to ignore the Constitution).
He's already trying to get around the 14th Amendment, what's one more.Well, he pardoned his fellow insurrectionists, which is disturbing on several counts. The man doesn't reward loyalty for its own sake. He'll punish disloyalty, the Great Leader must be obeyed in all things, but discards his toys when done with them, which to me suggests he still has use for them.For the next election, no doubt. When he illegally tries to become President for a third time (having done something dodgy to ignore the Constitution).
That's assuming there is another election.
That's assuming there is another election.Indeed, a legit worry from someone who told a crowd, "You don't have to vote again" after this election.
And here we go... it's day #3 of his second term and Republicans are already trying to amend the Constitution to allow him to have a third term. It certainly won't succeed, and he'll be 82 years old in 4 years... but it still tells you what they are thinking.My surprise, she is as unending as a puddle in Death Valley in July.
And here we go... it's day #3 of his second term and Republicans are already trying to amend the Constitution to allow him to have a third term.
Never going to happen.
To pass Congress, a change to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate. The 535 seats in Congress currently stand at 273 (R) v 262 (D)... Republicans would need at least 321 sets to pass the proposal and send it to the State Letgislatures for ratification.
To ratify a Constitution change it requires a minimum of 75% of the states to agree. There are 49 Bicameral State Legislatures and one unicameral (Nebraska), so 50 Upper Houses and 49 Lower Houses, a total of 99 chambers. Republicans would need to control 75 of those chambers, but they only control 57.
Even if, somehow, it were to pass Congress though some Senate and House rules changes, it would never pass the ratification stage. No Democrat chamber is going to vote The Fat Orange Turd a third term.
Never going to happen.
To pass Congress, a change to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate. The 535 seats in Congress currently stand at 273 (R) v 262 (D)... Republicans would need at least 321 sets to pass the proposal and send it to the State Letgislatures for ratification.
To ratify a Constitution change it requires a minimum of 75% of the states to agree. There are 49 Bicameral State Legislatures and one unicameral (Nebraska), so 50 Upper Houses and 49 Lower Houses, a total of 99 chambers. Republicans would need to control 75 of those chambers, but they only control 57.
Even if, somehow, it were to pass Congress though some Senate and House rules changes, it would never pass the ratification stage. No Democrat chamber is going to vote The Fat Orange Turd a third term.
The GOP are going to rework the system to ensure that shaking their grasp on power will be very, very hard. Vance is ready to step in once Trump has served his usefulness and they wheel him off to dribble in a nursing home somewhere.
I personally think that we are watching the start of the collapse of the United States. If Musk stops Federal aid payments to citizens then a civil war won't be long behind. There's enough people out there that think that Luigi Mangione is actually a hero....
Europe is no bed of roses. It is going to rip itself apart in the next 10 years. I do not think the EU project will survive the rise of the right. Populism is on the rise everywhere, and Europe has a knack for showing the world full-throttle fascism with extra shiny bits.
The EU is composed of individual countries, each with their own head of State. No-one Prime Minister has the control that the POTUS has.