Politics - wait for it... wait for it... 2020 isn't over yet

[Guard Dog]

What the actual f--k? Why did this even need t be asked?  Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election

[Orogun01]

28 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

What the actual f--k? Why did this even need t be asked?  Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election

Was that rhetorical? Either way the statement for neutrality comes as varied comments throughout the years that are urging a military coup.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Orogun01

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I wonder if Trump actually believes in anything? 

you should read elmer gantry. that were our point. 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

13 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

UK excess deaths put their death toll ~50% higher than declared, for example

So we're chalking up all excess deaths to rona, now?

[BruceVC]

58 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

What the actual f--k? Why did this even need t be asked?  Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election

GD just to be clear on why you are vehemently opposed to the military being deployment, is it because as the article mentions 

The Constitution and laws of the US and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections ... I do not see the US military as part of this process," Milley said in a letter released on Friday responding to questions from two members of the House

Would you support the military being deployed to address excessive rioting and violent protests? This is highly unlikely but it cannot be ignored due to the reality of current protests we see in some US cities. So hypothetically speaking if Trump wins and we see the same level of Portland  anarchy in 12-15 US cities would you support the National Guard and or military being used ? 

 

[Guard Dog]

45 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

GD just to be clear on why you are vehemently opposed to the military being deployment, is it because as the article mentions 

The Constitution and laws of the US and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections ... I do not see the US military as part of this process," Milley said in a letter released on Friday responding to questions from two members of the House

Would you support the military being deployed to address excessive rioting and violent protests? This is highly unlikely but it cannot be ignored due to the reality of current protests we see in some US cities. So hypothetically speaking if Trump wins and we see the same level of Portland  anarchy in 12-15 US cities would you support the National Guard and or military being used ? 

 

Absolutely not. The US military is neither trained in or equipped to handle non-violent crowd dispersal. The only way the military could stop a riot or a protest as to turn everybody in it into corpses. That is its function, that is its equipment, that is it’s training and it’s purpose. It is not a weapon to be turned against the American citizens.

 

to quote Bruce Willis in a movie from a few years back the military is not a scalpel it is a broadsword

Edited August 29, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Volourn]

"So we're chalking up all excess deaths to rona, now?"

That isn't new.

There been cases where someone died from something else (car accident, cancer, etc.) but if they happened to *maybe* (negative tests even) they would count it as a covid 19 death.

[Gromnir]

@BruceVC

please reference our above links regarding the muslim ban promise.

furthermore, the earliest iterations o' the President's attempt to implement the muslim ban were transparent and laughable unconstitutional. if you ban immigrants from the nations where +95% o' muslim immigrants to the US arrive, and you make exceptions for immigrants o' non muslim faith and then try an pretend as if you aren't attempting to ban muslim ingress, the Court will chastise. thank goodness.

is nothing 'bout being a judge which means you need be willful obtuse. justice is blind, but she ain't deaf and stoopid. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[BruceVC]

20 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Absolutely not. The US military is neither trained in or equipped to handle non-violent crowd dispersal. The only way the military could stop a riot or a protest as to turn everybody in it into corpses. That is its function, that is its equipment, that is it’s training and it’s purpose. It is not a weapon to be turned against the American citizens.

 

to quote Bruce Willis in a movie from a few years back the military is not a scalpel it is a broadsword

I hear you, fair enough. But how do you justify when the National Guard get deployed to deal with issues like rioting and civil disobedience? And this can be legally implemented by a governor or is the National Guard not seen as the military in the article ? 

[Volourn]

BLM strikes again!

 

'Feels the need to kill a white male!'

 

Nor racism. Not hate crime. HAHAHAH!

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

I hear you, fair enough. But how do you justify when the National Guard get deployed to deal with issues like rioting and civil disobedience? And this can be legally implemented by a governor or is the National Guard not seen as the military in the article ? 

“Indeed we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”-- J. Rehnquist, us v morrison (2000)

we  almost invariably claim Justices are misidentified as republican or democrat. Justices follow legal philosophies which kinda/sorta mesh in some places with party philosophy, but that is frequent not the case. J. Scalia, for example, considered by many to be a pro-republican Justice, were the Court's most ardent defender o' 4th amendment protections, making it more difficult for cops to investigate and for da to criminalize. however, rehnquist...

"as an aside, J. Rehnquist were always our prime example o' a dangerous Justice.  no Justice active during our lifetime has received as much Gromnir vitriol as did Rehnquist.  Scalia and Rehnquist were both "conservative" Justices and frequent they voted the same.  even so, they occupied diametric opposed positions on our personal scale o' Justice approval." gromnir, feb 2016.

rehnquist were a transparent political creature and even he had no stomach for the kinda nonsense you saw in portland.

send in military is a state decision. period. worse, while oro and bruce may be forgiven for being unaware o' the law, every single US senator knew. even if they convinced self that somehow sending militarized fed police to portland to exacerbate the violence there were a good thing, they knew what were being done were unconstitutional. 

without a specific request from governor or state legislature (and not just a single pro-fed legislator) sending fed police to suppress violence is unconstitutional. end of story. period.

this is not a gray area kinda issue. not even close. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps what william barr did to legitimize the fed police/troop presence were to claim the protesters were insurrectionists, trying to overthrow the government o' the United States of America. don't even get us started if you are gonna try and sell that bit o' mularkey.

 

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

“Indeed we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”-- J. Rehnquist, us v morrison (2000)

we  almost invariably claim Justices are misidentified as republican or democrat. Justices follow legal philosophies which kinda/sorta mesh in some places with party philosophy, but that is frequent not the case. J. Scalia, for example, considered by many to be a pro-republican Justice, were the Court's most ardent defender o' 4th amendment protections, making it more difficult for cops to investigate and for da to criminalize. however, rehnquist...

"as an aside, J. Rehnquist were always our prime example o' a dangerous Justice.  no Justice active during our lifetime has received as much Gromnir vitriol as did Rehnquist.  Scalia and Rehnquist were both "conservative" Justices and frequent they voted the same.  even so, they occupied diametric opposed positions on our personal scale o' Justice approval." gromnir, feb 2016.

rehnquist were a transparent political creature and even he had no stomach for the kinda nonsense you saw in portland.

send in military is a state decision. period. worse, while oro and bruce may be forgiven for being unaware o' the law, every single US senator knew. even if they convinced self that somehow sending militarized fed police to portland to exacerbate the violence there were a good thing, they knew what were being done were unconstitutional. 

without a specific request from governor or state legislature (and not just a single pro-fed legislator) sending fed police to suppress violence is unconstitutional. end of story. period.

this is not a gray area kinda issue. not even close. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps what william barr did to legitimize the fed police/troop presence were to claim the protesters were insurrectionists, trying to overthrow the government o' the United States of America. don't even get us started if you are gonna try and sell that bit o' mularkey.

 

You have made your point well, so in other yes the state could authorize it if necessary. As I mentioned its highly unlikely but this potential is something that is not impossible if the governor decides it

I can imagine you arent to fond of Barr but he is one person who you shouldnt  underestimate, he is very clever and knows how to blur the law with certain realities on the ground...I watched his inquiry and he is a formidable opponent because he came across with many convincing responses  based on legal justifications which seemed to be based on the US constitution....not that I would know if it was true but it seemed true based on how members of congress were shutdown or how Barr seemed unrepentant and defiant 

 

 

[ComradeYellow]

On 8/28/2020 at 12:37 AM, Gromnir said:

"snob" is a cut (buddy, am looking right at you in the mirror) but am not sure 'bout the other stuff. over-educated?

scene from the tick animated series.

Professor Chromedome:
[screaming at the TV] Mung Mung, you oily little sellout! Wannabes, all of you! Spit-shining your prosthetic limbs and whitewashing your liver spots for this wretched, back-patting smarty-party!

Chairface Chippendale:
I take it you won't be attending.

Professor Chromedome:
The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does wear the 'Hello My Name is' badge! He strikes from below, like a viper! Or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around! He has only the one purpose! Do bad things to good people... MIT SCIENCE!

from our pov, "over-educated" as a slight or critique is a 2020 shibboleth. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps we has taken a shot at native californians more than once, but is rare serious as we love the granola munching and van wearing tree huggers as much as any o' God's children.

Then there's Gromnir, the menstrating airhead wind-wall of text. 

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Then there's Gromnir, the menstrating airhead wind-wall of text. 

am now 51, so might be more appropriate to identify as menopausal.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

I told you guys this was coming. Confederate statues would be removed from national parks in Gettysburg, elsewhere under Minn. lawmaker’s bill

 

Year Zero. 

 

To be clear this is a Bill in committee that may never see a floor vote let alone a trip to the Senate or White House. It's a long way from being a thing. But it is also and insight into thinking of the body politic. A Biden admin and a majority in Congress could well see this happen. If it does we have crossed the line from removing statues that were placed solely for racial antagonism and moved into something truly Orwellian. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I told you guys this was coming. Confederate statues would be removed from national parks in Gettysburg, elsewhere under Minn. lawmaker’s bill

 

Year Zero. 

 

To be clear this is a Bill in committee that may never see a floor vote let alone a trip to the Senate or White House. It's a long way from being a thing. But it is also and insight into thinking of the body politic. A Biden admin and a majority in Congress could well see this happen. If it does we have crossed the line from removing statues that were placed solely for racial antagonism and moved into something truly Orwellian. 

It is wrong and a complete overreaction to the purpose of any statues on battlefields, I watched a documentary on CNN on this where the official Gettysburg historian who works at the Gettysburg Museum explained why these statues matter, I hope this Bill is immediately blocked ASAP 

I am not trying to blame anyone on a personal level but GD this is why you shouldnt ever support any statues been taken down unless its someone like Nathan Forrest, I learnt this  years which is why you may recall I have been opposed to most statue removal in the UK and very critical  of the vandalism done to statues like Winston Churchill and the Cenotaph

The activists that demand these things always go too far and never are satisfied because I personally believe  most of dont even know what most of the statues represent and are just part of the knee-jerk reaction  outrage where its more about grandstanding, social media attention and covert ways  to malign and criticize  all white people and hopefully offend them around history. Its not about any real offense 

 

[Orogun01]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

“Indeed we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”-- J. Rehnquist, us v morrison (2000)

we  almost invariably claim Justices are misidentified as republican or democrat. Justices follow legal philosophies which kinda/sorta mesh in some places with party philosophy, but that is frequent not the case. J. Scalia, for example, considered by many to be a pro-republican Justice, were the Court's most ardent defender o' 4th amendment protections, making it more difficult for cops to investigate and for da to criminalize. however, rehnquist...

"as an aside, J. Rehnquist were always our prime example o' a dangerous Justice.  no Justice active during our lifetime has received as much Gromnir vitriol as did Rehnquist.  Scalia and Rehnquist were both "conservative" Justices and frequent they voted the same.  even so, they occupied diametric opposed positions on our personal scale o' Justice approval." gromnir, feb 2016.

rehnquist were a transparent political creature and even he had no stomach for the kinda nonsense you saw in portland.

send in military is a state decision. period. worse, while oro and bruce may be forgiven for being unaware o' the law, every single US senator knew. even if they convinced self that somehow sending militarized fed police to portland to exacerbate the violence there were a good thing, they knew what were being done were unconstitutional. 

without a specific request from governor or state legislature (and not just a single pro-fed legislator) sending fed police to suppress violence is unconstitutional. end of story. period.

this is not a gray area kinda issue. not even close. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps what william barr did to legitimize the fed police/troop presence were to claim the protesters were insurrectionists, trying to overthrow the government o' the United States of America. don't even get us started if you are gonna try and sell that bit o' mularkey.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I can infer from the actions of said governors that they would not request help for purely political reasons. They supported the BLM rioters until the protest came to their front yard, then they ordered the police to protect them. Erstwhile citizens who are suffering and don't care for bureaucracy will blame Trump for not sending the troops.
In that situation what would you have done legally in order to send the aid these areas needed, declare the governors and mayors traitors? Use the insurrection act? Either way it gives the excuse to the media to misrepresent Trump's actions as totalitarian and partisan.

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

I see where you're coming from, but I can infer from the actions of said governors that they would not request help for purely political reasons. They supported the BLM rioters until the protest came to their front yard, then they ordered the police to protect them. Erstwhile citizens who are suffering and don't care for bureaucracy will blame Trump for not sending the troops.
In that situation what would you have done legally in order to send the aid these areas needed, declare the governors and mayors traitors? Use the insurrection act? Either way it gives the excuse to the media to misrepresent Trump's actions as totalitarian and partisan.

And despite what people keep suggesting the usage of Federal agents was legally allowed in certain cities because Barr was never forced to concede he had unlawfully deployed federal agents during the congressional inquiry 

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I told you guys this was coming. Confederate statues would be removed from national parks in Gettysburg, elsewhere under Minn. lawmaker’s bill

 

Year Zero. 

 

To be clear this is a Bill in committee that may never see a floor vote let alone a trip to the Senate or White House. It's a long way from being a thing. But it is also and insight into thinking of the body politic. A Biden admin and a majority in Congress could well see this happen. If it does we have crossed the line from removing statues that were placed solely for racial antagonism and moved into something truly Orwellian. 

Always thus, with traitors.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And despite what people keep suggesting the usage of Federal agents was legally allowed in certain cities because Barr was never forced to concede he had unlawfully deployed federal agents during the congressional inquiry 

so, because barr didn't admit wrongdoing, it didn't happen?

...

‘Just plain wrong’: Fox News analyst attacks Trump’s ‘unconstitutional’ use of federal troops in Portland

the troops were there bruce and is only a complicit senate which made barr's lies possible. doesn't change that the troops were sent w/o a request by state actos necessary for them to be there. 

Trump Fires SDNY Prosecutor Who Refused to Resign

barr claimed berman resigned. he did not. this were the one instance o' overt incompetence by barr we may point to and it surprised us... right up until the bannon charges.

Judge slams Barr, orders review of Mueller report deletions

“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” the judge added.

barr lied. is no other way to describe. 

oh, and 'cause...

have said barr is the most dangerous man in washington, 'cause unlike other trump enablers, barr is competent. with the sole exception o' the firing o' the sdny us attorney, barr hasn't made clear mistakes and there is unlikely to ever be criminal charges directed at him, but he faces impeachment in january as well as trump if three seats flip, and there is already more than enough evidence to support impeachment.

the complicity o' the current senate makes barr and trump's malfeasance possible and barr is aware o' such, but his political life depends on such Congressional cowardice.

edit: to make clear, am not actual in favor o' the january impeachments which could occur even if trump loses and would be set to leave office january 20.  am indeed worried democrats, who will justifiable have reason to wanna payback complicit republicans for their efforts to undermine Constitutional democracy, will take swift and unwise action. 

am hopeful 'cause is biden, who would be President in such a scenario, cooler and more moderate personalities will prevail. 

do not be surprised if a democrat or even split senate complete changes the situation.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Gromnir

[Bartimaeus]

@Gromnir You mentioned the "3 seats flipping to impeach" thing before. I don't remember exactly how this works - it's the House doing what's technically the impeachment (basically laying charges against) which is simple majority, then the Senate votes to convict...but that's 2/3rds majority, isn't it? Or is it only 2/3rd majority to remove the president (as opposed to some other form of punishment)?

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, 213374U said:

So we're chalking up all excess deaths to rona, now?

It's certainly not a flawless measure* but it is a good and if applied properly objective measure of overall impact**. The situation with excess deaths is analogous to the old fire in the theatre situation where x people die from the fire, and y people die from the stampede when people try to get out. The people who die in the stampede didn't burn to death, but if the fire didn't happen they almost certainly wouldn't have died so including them in the death toll is fair enough. Theoretically the excess death rate catches all the people who died because all ICU beds were full as well as dying of 'pneumonia' at home instead of diagnosed covid19.

*since the death rate isn't a, uh, flat line year to year and has natural variance, and everything coronavirus related gets heavily politicised in some way.

**and historically, it has been extensively used in Spanish American Flu calculations. They're certainly very much subject to being politicised themselves though, 'genocide olympics' is full of people comparing demographic/ excess death numbers of one event to confirmed numbers of another to 'prove' someone is less bad than someone else.

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

@Gromnir You mentioned the "3 seats flipping to impeach" thing before. I don't remember exactly how this works - it's the House doing what's technically the impeachment (basically laying charges against) which is simple majority, then the Senate votes to convict...but that's 2/3rds majority, isn't it? Or is it only 2/3rd majority to remove the president (as opposed to some other form of punishment)?

the reason there were no witnesses at the senate trial is 'cause o' senate majority. just one example. with functional democrat control o' the flow o' information and a parade o' witnesses and documents orchestrated by democrats w/o the kneecapping by mcconnell, will be very difficult to suppress evidence as happened the first go 'round. 

mcghan and bolton and pompeo will be forced to testify and all o' the suppressed documents will be on display. 'could get very ugly when it becomes clear to the public just how much were known to the senators who just went along.

sure, some republicans will hold out no matter what. senators tend to have a better grasp o' history than our President, and they know that republican Congressman who did not loyal follow nixon were punished by their constituencies, regardless o' right or wrong. nevertheless, the first trial were a sham in spite o' considerable evidence already available. a second go 'round will be  devastating... for everybody.

the recent rubio report release alone should have republicans scared for january, but is an election year and how many people has read the near exhaustive report?

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Raithe]

<whistles innocently>

Edited August 30, 2020 by Raithe

[Orogun01]

10 minutes ago, Raithe said:

<whistles innocently>

Same could be said about "beloved" Obama, BLM was formed under his watch and his outspoken support for them during the Baltimore riots. Also, as someone who that has made inflammatory statements in these forums, I'll ask. Which one of you guys is coming to kill me? Can I pick?