Jump to content

Politics US Edition Volume II


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Amentep said:

Not sure at this point McConnell cares about either.  He'll do it because he can and it gets him what he wants, everything else be damned.  I think he's shown that over the Trump presidency, if not before.

am agreeing complete. pure transactional and a bit myopic at that. mcconnell got a huge number o' judges installed--lifetime appointments. he also saw trump galvanize the blue collar and white voters who had abandoned republicans a few years earlier and voted for obama.

mitch criticism o' harry reid and the democrats for their lack o' integrity were as hollow as were the reasoning for delaying merrick garland confirmation. nothing but transactional concerns from mitch.

@Pidesco

gonna disagree. mitt stand on impeachment and his marching with blm protesters cost him considerable support at home and with republicans 'cross the nation. recall how medicine dan reacted when we mentioned he-who-shall-not-be-named (mitt romney) earlier in this thread? mitt were marginalized w/i the party to a significant degree which undercut his efforts to author legislation and fundraise. mitt did himself no practical favors and he hurt himself more than a little by standing against trump.

romney, as we has been told many times by Constitutional scholars over the years, appeared more concerned with his legacy and reputation than immediate transactional gains. romney behaved as we woulda' expected senators to behave and as we were told by hamilton the founders believed they would.

however, am wondering if mitt woulda' shown so much integrity if he hadn't just won his own reelection and were not needing face the specter o' a primary 'gainst a trump supported candidate in the near future.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am agreeing complete. pure transactional and a bit myopic at that. mcconnell got a huge number o' judges installed--lifetime appointments. he also saw trump galvanize the blue collar and white voters who had abandoned republicans a few years earlier and voted for obama.

mitch criticism o' harry reid and the democrats for their lack o' integrity were as hollow as were the reasoning for delaying merrick garland confirmation. nothing but transactional concerns from mitch.

@Pidesco

gonna disagree. mitt stand on impeachment and his marching with blm protesters cost him considerable support at home and with republicans 'cross the nation. recall how medicine dan reacted when we mentioned he-who-shall-not-be-named (mitt romney) earlier in this thread? mitt were marginalized w/i the party to a significant degree which undercut his efforts to author legislation and fundraise. mitt did himself no practical favors and he hurt himself more than a little by standing against trump.

romney, as we has been told many times by Constitutional scholars over the years, appeared more concerned with his legacy and reputation than immediate transactional gains. romney behaved as we woulda' expected senators to behave and as we were told by hamilton the founders believed they would.

however, am wondering if mitt woulda' shown so much integrity if he hadn't just won his own reelection and were not needing face the specter o' a primary 'gainst a trump supported candidate in the near future.

HA! Good Fun!

I know we disagree on this but the 17th amendment has ruined the Senate.

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's a sort of way out there as far as sources go, but Putin had some interesting insights into Trumps popularity with his base. From a Pre-G20 interview last year (after laughing off the idea that he arranged for Trump to get elected). Tl;dr; Trump saw how costly globalization had been for the middle class and seized on that. Edit: Crap, doesn't like embedding, need to click link to youtube to see. Fast forward to 4:52 for the part I wanted to share

 

  • Thanks 1

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gorth said:

I know it's a sort of way out there as far as sources go, but Putin had some interesting insights into Trumps popularity with his base. From a Pre-G20 interview last year (after laughing off the idea that he arranged for Trump to get elected). Tl;dr; Trump saw how costly globalization had been for the middle class and seized on that. Edit: Crap, doesn't like embedding, need to click link to youtube to see. Fast forward to 4:52 for the part I wanted to share

 

Gothfuscious !!! I am shocked you are pushing Russian propaganda ....how could you forget the immutable life lessons that we learnt at school ..." better dead than red " ;) ( and remember people like us were born during the Cold War so that always applies ...we have real lived experience of this  great existential clash of ideology )

I am glad you posted it because  sometimes when I watch these  types of informative clips I confirm what I already believe, or have learnt , or I learn something new....and sometimes when I learn something new it may seem small but it has very real and complex ramifications for my broader view of geopolitics and different pertinent ideological alliances

Putin is a good person to interview, he comes across as convincing and calm and responds to potentially complex questions with succinct but revealing comments. I appreciate that and it demonstrates his intelligence which I have always respected

But in summary there are several key things to take from this interview  that are about the most important considerations that generally came up during the Trump presidency ... "what is the reality behind the current Russia and USA relationship "   but more appropriately " whats with this bromance between Putin and Trump "  

I love the way Putin responded using such masterful brevity to  questions around some of Trumps controversial policies and views towards the EU 

" Trump is  not a career politician " .....boy did the world  learn that the hard way, Putin doesn't need to point that one out to those of us suffering from the geopolitical   hangover of   " Trump is going to drain the swamp  and make America great again  ", many people have had to live with this for the last 4 years :x............;)

But its time to move on and " bring the nation together " so this is not the time for a  Trump witch-hunt    and to be fair  Trump did somethings that I support and had positive outcomes 

Lastly if you said to me " what, if anything, was the most pertinent thing you learnt from the clip" 

Putin could have done what many  world leaders have done and immediately recognized Biden  or indirectly criticized Trump by saying things like " we are looking forward  to the old way the USA use to operate being restored "

But he clearly really  likes  Trump and appreciates how Trump did try to extend the hand of new friendship and improved cooperation towards him and Russia. I respect that in the sense he is not pandering to the understandable anti-Trump sentiment 

So I learnt there is a real connection from Putins side towards Trump and its more than just political expediency and economic objectives 8)

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaetz: Trump 'should pardon everyone' including himself to quash liberal 'bloodlust'

the notion o' a President pardoning himself is a doa legal argument.

fundamental rule o' law: "no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself."

however, it got us thinking 'bout biden pardoning trump. sure, most folks is gonna laugh at our suggestion, but what if biden offers full pardon for any and all federal crimes... but only those crimes trump admits to?

trump is offered a get-out-of-jail-free card with no takebacksees and biden gets to be gracious and merciful to a defeated political foe. undercuts signifficat the democrats out for blood argument, no? 

sure, trump would never accept such an offer, and from a legal standpoint, it is an offer. (is another reason the self-pardon is a idiotic suggestion. legal cannot make an offer to self.) trump would no doubt refuse biden's offer of pardon tied to admission o' guilt, but am thinking the offer itself would be a political win for biden and would put trump in a difficult position.

HA! Good Fun!  

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

republican governor, tom ridge. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps flynn is just the first. anybody who could be used as a witness against trump in future litigation will likely be pardoned so as to remove leverage options available to the justice department.

is the fact this pardon doesn't surprise anybody which should be shocking to everybody.

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 3

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

As the charges for Flynn would not fly in any other lawful western country the pardon comes as no surprise.

https://www.shine.cn/news/world/2011260562/

Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI, I am not sure how this would be considered not criminal in any country?

There is a time and place to defend Trump and his surrogates but this definitely is  not one of them 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.shine.cn/news/world/2011260562/

Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI, I am not sure how this would be considered not criminal in any country?

There is a time and place to defend Trump and his surrogates but this definitely is  not one of them 

 

Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare.

The principle that no one may be compelled to accuse himself is the guiding principle of the criminal process in any democratic state ruled by law. This principle is present in Poland constitution and present in either constitution or law of many western countries. A witness cannot lie, but a suspect is allowed to lie, withhold information etc. as a part of his right to defense. Moreover a person that is interrogated as a witness, but later changes status to suspect or accused retains the same right, even if he only suspects that his status as a witness might change. There are plenty of verdicts from Polish Supreme Court that reinforce this as police did use this tactics of interrogating suspects as witnesses. Polish Ombudsman intervened in this regards many times as such practices are against the law. In Polish law the witness gives testimony, but suspect or accused provides explanations. This is an important distinction to show separation between witness and suspect/accused.

USA law that a suspect cannot lie to FBI is a clear violation of this principle and in principle basically takes away the right to defense. Therefore my comment.

Edited by Skarpen
  • Thanks 1

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

 

Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare.

The principle that no one may be compelled to accuse himself is the guiding principle of the criminal process in any democratic state ruled by law. This principle is present in Poland constitution and present in either constitution or law of many western countries. A witness cannot lie, but a suspect is allowed to lie, withhold information etc. as a part of his right to defense. Moreover a person that is interrogated as a witness, but later changes status to suspect or accused retains the same right, even if he only suspects that his status as a witness might change. There are plenty of verdicts from Polish Supreme Court that reinforce this as police did use this tactics of interrogating suspects as witnesses. Polish Ombudsman intervened in this regards many times as such practices are against the law. In Polish law the witness gives testimony, but suspect or accused provides explanations. This is an important distinction to show separation between witness and suspect/accused.

USA law that a suspect cannot lie to FBI is a clear violation of this principle and in principle basically takes away the right to defense. Therefore my comment.

Okay thanks for sharing, the law is not my strong point and I prefer to avoid any debates around it unless very easy to understand 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gromnir said:

republican governor, tom ridge. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps flynn is just the first. anybody who could be used as a witness against trump in future litigation will likely be pardoned so as to remove leverage options available to the justice department.

is the fact this pardon doesn't surprise anybody which should be shocking to everybody.

Look at that swamp drain.

  • Hmmm 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Look at that swamp drain.

I hear you but Trump didnt  attend after agreeing it was a good idea

That shows he realized how inappropriate it was and thats a good thing 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Okay thanks for sharing, the law is not my strong point and I prefer to avoid any debates around it unless very easy to understand 

don't listen to skarp_one about... anything. particular not legal. lie to cops is illegal in many countries. even where lie to cops is not inherent illegal, what flynn did woulda' been illegal in almost all the rest.

flynn lied in formal interviews with the fbi and signed declarations his statements were truthful to best of his knowledge. those signed declarations is transformative in most european jurisdictions and canada. put it in writing makes a difference in europe 'cause such writings is identified as declarations to the court.

is also worth noting how flynn lied to fbi about interactions with a russian agent. such a lie exposed flynn to compromise by the russians as they were aware he lied. the national security aspect o' flynn's lie woulda exposed him to criminal prosecution in any number o' countries even if the crime would not have been the lie itself but the compromise.

HA! Good Fun!

 

  • Thanks 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

don't listen to skarp_one about... anything. particular not legal. lie to cops is illegal in many countries. even where lie to cops is not inherent illegal, what flynn did woulda' been illegal in almost all the rest.

flynn lied in formal interviews with the fbi and signed declarations his statements were truthful to best of his knowledge. those signed declarations is transformative in most european jurisdictions and canada. put it in writing makes a difference in europe 'cause such writings is identified as declarations to the court.

is also worth noting how flynn lied to fbi about interactions with a russian agent. such a lie exposed flynn to compromise by the russians as they were aware he lied. the national security aspect o' flynn's lie woulda exposed him to criminal prosecution in any number o' countries even if the crime would not have been the lie itself but the compromise.

HA! Good Fun!

 

They saying the same thing on CNN and even though CNN can be " anti-Trump "  at times these  are all lawyers commenting and they all say Flynn lied to the FBI and this was  definitely a crime and not just specific to the USA

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

don't listen to skarp_one about... anything. particular not legal. lie to cops is illegal in many countries. even where lie to cops is not inherent illegal, what flynn did woulda' been illegal in almost all the rest.

It's only illegal for the witness not suspect/accused. USA is unique in it's forcing accused/witness to provide evidence against himself or be punished.

12 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

flynn lied in formal interviews with the fbi and signed declarations his statements were truthful to best of his knowledge. those signed declarations is transformative in most european jurisdictions and canada. put it in writing makes a difference in europe 'cause such writings is identified as declarations to the court.

All witness testimony and suspect/accused explanation is in written form and signed by the person giving it in Poland at least. Putting it in writing doesn't change the nature of testimony/explanations.

  

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

They saying the same thing on CNN

That statement alone makes it doubtful 😉

 

Edited by Skarpen

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Skarpen said:

As the charges for Flynn would not fly in any other lawful western country the pardon comes as no surprise.

when skarp_one said, "in any other lawful western country," he actually meant Poland. good to know. 'cause in most other western nations, flynn signing documents following questioning by law enforcement as to the truthfulness o' his statements woulda' exposed himself to criminal prosecution if he had lied... which he did. 

btw, we got 5th amendment which provides in part and is codifying opposite o' needing present testimony against self or suffer punishment. so, wrong 'bout that too.

dependable rule of thumb: if is law, assume skarp_one is wrong.

wouldn't count on skarp_one being right 'bout Poland neither as we has seen in the past he is as ignorant 'bout polish law as he is 'bout law elsewheres. we would look into the matter save for am preparing thanksgiving meal. maybe tomorrow.

HA! Good Fun! 

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

when skarp_one said, "in any other lawful western country," he actually meant Poland. good to know.

That's false, I meant any other lawful western country. I used Poland as an example.

23 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

cause in most other western nations, flynn signing documents following questioning by law enforcement as to the truthfulness o' his statements woulda' exposed himself to criminal prosecution if he had lied... which he did. 

Also false. Statement to law enforcement follow the same law whether it's written or oral. In fact as I stated above almost always oral statements to law enforcement IS required to be transcripted and signed so the point Mr. Photo Op tries to make about there being any difference between written or oral statement to law enforcement is moot and doesn't hold any grounds.

23 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

btw, we got 5th amendment which provides in part and is codifying opposite o' needing present testimony against self or suffer punishment. so, wrong 'bout that too.

Which is even more weird that US have a law that forces individual to do so if it's FBI. 

 

But you don't have to take my word for it, you can take Polish Ombudsman statement about interviewing accused as a witness:
RPO proponuje: przesłuchanie osoby faktycznie podejrzanej jako świadka - tylko z udziałem adwokata | Commissioner for Human Rights

Edited by Skarpen

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

balderdash

what on earth are you talking 'bout? flynn made statements to law enforcement and signed documents as to the veracity o' his recollections. those statements flynn made to law enforcement and declared truthful with multiple signatures on documentation were untrue. those documented lies get him criminalized in just about any western nation. oh, and am guessing fact flynn were creating a national security risk with his lies would make it UNIVERSAL that he woulda' been prosecuted as every nation we know o' frowns 'pon such stuff.

and your misunderstanding 'bout the 5th amendment will no doubt amuse most americans who read this thread. am uncertain what makes you believe 5th amendment protections against self incrimination do not apply to fbi interrogations, but am thinking such misunderstanding is foundational to your mistakes.

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

what on earth are you talking 'bout? 

If you don't understand then feel free to read my posts carefully again and again until you understand. Those posts are not going anywhere.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

If you don't understand then feel free to read my posts carefully again and again until you understand. Those posts are not going anywhere.

been down that rabbit hole many times.

again, you somehow believe 5th amendment didn't apply to flynn in his interactions with the fbi. is clear a fundamental misconception... more than one.

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Flynn never read Miranda.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

been down that rabbit hole many times.

again, you somehow believe 5th amendment didn't apply to flynn in his interactions with the fbi. is clear a fundamental misconception... more than one.

HA! Good Fun!

Please point to a paragraph where I made such statement.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...