The All Things Political Topic - A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen

[alanschu]

Texas GOP has evidently declared the President as illegitimately elected so that's cool I guess.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-gop-declares-biden-illegitimate-demands-end-abortion-1717167

(Not sure the overall quality of Newsweek but given I'm familiar with them I'm assuming it's not just purely conspiratorial stuff)

[majestic]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Her arrest was disgraceful and clearly political. What was she arrested for....Cannabis oil or something equally as innocuous

I hope she gets released as these charges are trumped up and egregious 

 

But surly you belief in the rule of law in the US ? Their is no banana republic their !

[Gromnir]

11 minutes ago, majestic said:

But surly you belief in the rule of law in the US ? Their is no banana republic their !

gotta embrace us v. them. when china and russia do autocracy bit and pervert the rule of law it is bad. when the US does so it is also bad... but not if the US is trying to stop bad people?  

that said, have seen this same thing from boardies who vilify cops, conservatives and politicians collective and regardless o' the specific facts o' a situation; is not only a bruce fail. 

however, we will note dallas cowboys fandom is a special exception to our recognition o' the unforgivable and insidious nature o' bigotry. thou shalt not suffer jerry jones or a cowboys fan...

unrelated (maybe) and in anticipation o' hearings tomorrow, brookings did a rather comprehensive review o' the georgia situation. is 'bout 110 pages if you wanna read the full report. am suspicious many save Gromnir has/will read, but is worth the effort if one is wanting a more nuanced perspective from folks who understand the relevant legal and political issues. is plenty to unpack, but for those with short attention spans, the shortest version o' the conclusions reached is as follows: even with only public available facts available to drive an analysis, trump and numerous members o' his administration is facing real and serious jeopardy o' criminal prosecution for their interventions in Georgia's efforts related to the 2020 Presidential Election. however, it cannot be ignored that those who would be bringing charges is democrats and it will be difficult to overcome the public perception o' a prosecution which amounts to political vendetta. 

but again, the reason am offering is for those curious 'bout possible trump crimes and defenses, which is a bit more nuanced than is gonna fit in a twitter length response. as such the short version is not offering much value. 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

48 minutes ago, majestic said:

But surly you belief in the rule of law in the US ? Their is no banana republic their !

Hold on there partner, I think we need to wait for all the details to come out. We don't want to jump to conclusions, as always the assumption of innocence must be given. It's too easy to try and make Israel look monstrous when the truth is more complicated.

Oh wait this is about Russia? Fry the Orcs alive.

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

Texas GOP has evidently declared the President as illegitimately elected so that's cool I guess.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-gop-declares-biden-illegitimate-demands-end-abortion-1717167

(Not sure the overall quality of Newsweek but given I'm familiar with them I'm assuming it's not just purely conspiratorial stuff)

It's been reported several places and is almost certainly legit. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to Texas Republicans for any measure of time, but it's getting scary to live here.

[Malcador]

Another shining example of a SEAL, hah.

[HoonDing]

let them fight.mp4

[alanschu]

1 hour ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

It's been reported several places and is almost certainly legit. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to Texas Republicans for any measure of time, but it's getting scary to live here.

My wife is from the area and she definitely knows some trans folks to just help turn the anxious worry up to 11 when you factor in their vulnerabilities as well.

It's interesting because I think that Texas is a lot closer to being purple than a lot of the die hard would like to think, but 100% think that they'll be doing whatever they can (shady or otherwise) to try to stop that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

28 minutes ago, alanschu said:

My wife is from the area and she definitely knows some trans folks to just help turn the anxious worry up to 11 when you factor in their vulnerabilities as well.

It's interesting because I think that Texas is a lot closer to being purple than a lot of the die hard would like to think, but 100% think that they'll be doing whatever they can (shady or otherwise) to try to stop that.

It's definitely getting worse here. I suppose I need to come up with escape plan sooner rather than later.

There's a lot of states that are much redder than Texas, (and even some purple states) but I think Texas is a good model of how the Republicans intend to govern purple states when they get into power. The game plan is to make voting extremely hard and doubly so for areas likely to vote Blue while gerrymandering the **** out of districts to ensure that you end up with an outsized number of Republicans compared to what proportionally gets voted for. We can already see this with several states that went for Biden in 2020 and I get the feeling it's going to ramp up in the aftermath of 2022.

[BruceVC]

Im watching some of the Insurrection investigation hearings

Its scary how their was  a concerted attempt by some of Trumps supporters  to undermine the 2020 election results and Bidens victory

[Gromnir]

the january 6 hearings thus far make it clear the following people (at the very least) should all be taking the fifth:

mark meadows

rudy

jeffrey clark

john eastman

and add ron johnson to the list

the former President is an unusual case. as a practical matter, criminal prosecutions are gonna favour a well-represented defendant; the system is designed to the advantage o' defendants, but such benefits is only actualized if you are able to afford the best representation.  conspiracy to obstruct the peaceful transfer o' power in general, and the january 6 electoral college count more specific, makes some kind trump belief he were robbed o' the election a non-factor from a legal pov, but such is gonna nevertheless be communicated ad nauseum to a jury, and a majority o' republicans as o' the most recent polling reveals they believe trump were cheated out o' a second term as President. trump is the current high priest o' the gop and his january 6 narrative has already become part o' the religious dogma o' the faith. 

am suspecting the doj is aware folks who don't wanna convict trump are gonna need more than an ordinary smoking gun to convince them to do so. any jury trial o' trump is gonna be a gamble and ordinarily the doj don't do vegas odds.

HA! Good Fun!

ps btw, try multiple o' the aforementioned fifth amendment candidates and get a couple o' em to turn on trump and be witness for the prosecution would change the dynamic considerable. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the january 6 hearings thus far make it clear the following people (at the very least) should all be taking the fifth:

mark meadows

rudy

jeffrey clark

john eastman

and add ron johnson to the list

the former President is an unusual case. as a practical matter, criminal prosecutions are gonna favour a well-represented defendant; the system is designed to the advantage o' defendants, but such benefits is only actualized if you are able to afford the best representation.  conspiracy to obstruct the peaceful transfer o' power in general, and the january 6 electoral college count more specific, makes some kind trump belief he were robbed o' the election a non-factor from a legal pov, but such is gonna nevertheless be communicated ad nauseum to a jury, and a majority o' republicans as o' the most recent polling reveals they believe trump were cheated out o' a second term as President. trump is the current high priest o' the gop and his january 6 narrative has already become part o' the religious dogma o' the faith. 

am suspecting the doj is aware folks who don't wanna convict trump are gonna need more than an ordinary smoking gun to convince them to do so. any jury trial o' trump is gonna be a gamble and ordinarily the doj don't do vegas odds.

HA! Good Fun!

ps btw, try multiple o' the aforementioned fifth amendment candidates and get a couple o' em to turn on trump and be witness for the prosecution would change the dynamic considerable. 

But its also  clear that Trump genuinely believed the election was stolen. As usual with these types of developments Trump had no understanding or interest in how things work. He was  told by his trusted advisors like Eastman, Giuliani and Bannon that he had won and he believed it 

Im not sure why well informed people thought they could change the legitimate outcome of the election...what did they think they could achieve?

But as far  Trump is concerned he will say " I know the election was stolen because I was told it was stolen by clever people, everyone knows we won " or something similar 

 

[Pidesco]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But its also  clear that Trump genuinely believed the election was stolen. As usual with these types of developments Trump had no understanding or interest in how things work. He was  told by his trusted advisors like Eastman, Giuliani and Bannon that he had won and he believed it 

Im not sure why well informed people thought they could change the legitimate outcome of the election...what did they think they could achieve?

But as far  Trump is concerned he will say " I know the election was stolen because I was told it was stolen by clever people, everyone knows we won " or something similar 

 

What the hearings are showing is the exact opposite. Trump knew perfectly well that he had lost and how he had lost but he kept on pushing his attempt to overturn the election for the grift/his hubris.

[majestic]

He either really believed it and disqualified himself by lacking the mental faculties or he knew  and understood and showed a whole lot of criminal energy in addition to moral turpitude.

Curious how little difference that really makes. Either way the former Orange in Chief needs to be kept from power.

Edited June 22, 2022 by majestic

[Malcador]

https://abacusdata.ca/conspiracy-theories-canada-4-3-2/

Forgot to ask them if they want changes to the Second Amendment.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 minutes ago, majestic said:

He either really believed it and disqualified himself by lacking the mental faculties or he knew  and understood and showed a whole lot of criminal energy in addition to moral turpitude.

Curious how little difference that really makes. Either way the former Orange in Chief needs to be kept from power.

Honestly, I think that Trump or an imitator is going to come into power over the next few years. Our Macron (eat the brie baby) has been a big disappointment to anyone who isn't a financially comfortable wonk while the cult of the orange has been steadily stacking the deck in their favor. Maybe the Dems pull their heads out of their asses and realize the contours of power have changed substantially and that they actually need to do something about voting rights (and hopefully the **** their voters need, like healthcare and wages) but more than likely they will stand still waiting for their old dance partners to rejoin the waltz instead of trying to burn down the building.

[Gromnir]

45 minutes ago, majestic said:

He either really believed it and disqualified himself by lacking the mental faculties or he knew  and understood and showed a whole lot of criminal energy in addition to moral turpitude.

Curious how little difference that really makes. Either way the former Orange in Chief needs to be kept from power.

this is arguable one o' the big mistakes o' democrats in the US as they is framing the question similar as majestic. is reasonable and makes sense, but it should be irrelevant. if bob murders his wife 'cause he truly believed she were having an affair, is the murder ok? 'course not. insofar as murder charges is concerned, it doesn't matter if mrs. bob were a trollop or not, and it sure don't matter if mr. bob thought she were cheating. what bob did were wrong and he knew or shoulda' know it were wrong. now if bob aimed a gun at mrs. bob and he may convince a jury he honest believed the gun weren't loaded, then he could present a defense to murder with intent. trump loaded the gun and pointed it at America. a defense that trump believed the b!tch deserved to die is as irrelevant for tump as it is for bob.

trump were part o' a plan to impede, obstruct and/or prevent the transfer o' power from his Presidency to biden's. doesn't matter he thought he were justified as if the question may be framed as some kinda moral question. 

converse, the individuals who were part o' the false state certificates part o' the plan has some legitimacy in declaring ignorance. if the not-electors genuine believed their alternative slates would only be used in the case o' trump success in court, as they were convinced by trump lawyers, then when such slates were used for another purpose, their ignorance could arguably bar some kinda specific intent threshold. many o' the false electors were conned into doing something illegal. 

now am understanding why political speaking it makes a difference if trump followers who believe the election were stolen and who is not wanting to admit even to themselves they were duped is embracing the honest belief nonsense as if it provides a defense to the particular crimes. Democrat politicians need convince some % o' trump followers that his actions were bad and not mere illegal. too many trump followers believe the b!tch deserves to die. however, notice how none o' the january 6 rioters is successful using a defense that they legit believed the election were stolen to avoid prosecution? trump don't gain some kinda special defense his followers is unable to avail themselves. 

am understanding why democrats is fighting republicans on republican terms, but it is irrelevant as a matter o' law.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 22, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

What the hearings are showing is the exact opposite. Trump knew perfectly well that he had lost and how he had lost but he kept on pushing his attempt to overturn the election for the grift/his hubris.

Thats not the impression Im getting. Their is a difference between someone, like Trump, who believed the election was really stolen and then acted to reverse the " stolen election " like asking Raffensperger to find 11k votes and someone like Bannon who knew that Biden had won but was still claiming " the election was stolen " 

This is  a massive distinction  and it will matter when it comes to criminal charges because Trump will say " but my advisors told me I won the election". And thats not to say other advisors hadnt  told him  he had lost but he didnt believe them  which was normal for his presidency. He trusted certain people above others

But you may be right and maybe Trump did know he had lost but I dont think he did? I didnt watch every interview in these hearings so their may be something I am missing 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

https://abacusdata.ca/conspiracy-theories-canada-4-3-2/

Forgot to ask them if they want changes to the Second Amendment.

Im genuinely surprised that Canadians can be so ignorant and nearly 50 %  polled would not be unequivocal about 9/11 and the fact that AQ was behind it 

I would interested in the data about who they asked, levels of education, where they lived etc. 

Because that type of confusion from a first world country like Canada I find hard to believe represents what the majority of Canadians think?

Edit : I see the poll was only 1500 people, so it represents a tiny number of people. Okay its not that bad 

Edited June 22, 2022 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

1500 people is perfectly fine for sample size, that should be 95% confidence (ie 5% chance the figures fall outside the +/- range). If done properly (questionable, since it's double opt in from existing panels*) they'll also have done a proper age/ sex/ profession/ education etc distribution/ weighting. There's always a  potential problem with using 'possible/ not sure' as one of the answers: it's certainly possible that Prince Phillip was driving the white Fiat that caused Dodi's car to crash having previously drugged the driver- though it isn't at all likely. You have to be quite careful with the wording to make sure you don't get people who are aware of the theory as opposed to taking it seriously.

For 9/11 specifically 'Inside Job' would certainly include things like the US Government letting the attack happen to get more power; not just "Pentagon was attacked by a missile and jet fuel can't melt steel beams" type 'theories' that exclude AQ (and just for you Bruce, Saudi) involvement.

*you'd expect conspiracy theorists to be more keen than the average person to be on such panels, so they'd have to be very careful to tackle bias.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

1500 people is perfectly fine for sample size, that should be 95% confidence (ie 5% chance the figures fall outside the +/- range). If done properly (questionable, since it's double opt in from existing panels*) they'll also have done a proper age/ sex/ profession/ education etc distribution/ weighting. There's always a  potential problem with using 'possible/ not sure' as one of the answers: it's certainly possible that Prince Phillip was driving the white Fiat that caused Dodi's car to crash having previously drugged the driver- though it isn't at all likely. You have to be quite careful with the wording to make sure you don't get people who are aware of the theory as opposed to taking it seriously.

For 9/11 specifically 'Inside Job' would certainly include things like the US Government letting the attack happen to get more power; not just "Pentagon was attacked by a missile and jet fuel can't melt steel beams" type 'theories' that exclude AQ (and just for you Bruce, Saudi) involvement.

*you'd expect conspiracy theorists to be more keen than the average person to be on such panels, so they'd have to be very careful to tackle bias.

But I still dont understand how 1500 people polled can be considered " what Canadians  think "? I have never really understood how that type of sampling can ever be considered accurate. Its interesting and I am not suggesting we handwave it but what does it really represent?

Their are 38 million people in Canada so that number represents 0.0039% of the total population

And where you live in a country could have a massive influence on your views, for example Volo lived in the rural areas of Canada. That influenced some of his unusual opinions

At the very least I would expect this type of poll to have people from the different regions in Canada?

And then the title of the link says " millions of Canadians say the election was stolen " but the truth is they asked only 1500 Canadians and only 16% of that number think that?

 

 

[Pidesco]

9 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But I still dont understand how 1500 people polled can be considered " what Canadians  think "? I have never really understood how that type of sampling can ever be considered accurate. Its interesting and I am not suggesting we handwave it but what does it really represent?

Their are 38 million people in Canada so that number represents 0.0039% of the total population

And where you live in a country could have a massive influence on your views, for example Volo lived in the rural areas of Canada. That influenced some of his unusual opinions

At the very least I would expect this type of poll to have people from the different regions in Canada?

And then the title of the link says " millions of Canadians say the election was stolen " but the truth is they asked only 1500 Canadians and only 16% of that number think that?

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/

[Guard Dog]

With regard to today's SCOTUS ruling on expanding access to CC. I really don't think this case should have been heard at all. New York changed the original law (which WAS unreasonably restrictive) before the case was heard so it should have been moot. The fact the the Court took a moot case smacks of activism looking for a place to happen. If I hate it when the liberal justices do it I'm going to hate it when the conservative justices do it. 

I have always thought CC was the purview of the state. Its up to the voters and legislature of each state to decide. Of course this is a over reaction to an over restriction. That is what over restriction generally get. It's all well and good to not prohibit  ownership of firearms (within reason) but when you turn around and make it illegal to transport them outside the home under any condition (even driving to the range which it what this was all about) this is what you get.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/

Thanks for this but remember polling  data is not always accurate particularly around voting patterns 

Remember BREXIT and the 2016 US elections which didnt include the undecided voters who really can swing the US election either way 

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

With regard to today's SCOTUS ruling on expanding access to CC. I really don't think this case should have been heard at all. New York changed the original law (which WAS unreasonably restrictive) before the case was heard so it should have been moot. The fact the the Court took a moot case smacks of activism looking for a place to happen. If I hate it when the liberal justices do it I'm going to hate it when the conservative justices do it. 

I have always thought CC was the purview of the state. Its up to the voters and legislature of each state to decide. Of course this is a over reaction to an over restriction. That is what over restriction generally get. It's all well and good to not prohibit  ownership of firearms (within reason) but when you turn around and make it illegal to transport them outside the home under any condition (even driving to the range which it what this was all about) this is what you get.

GD I think its time you acknowledge  the established US parties have let you down and you voted for someone else

I know its not a nice thing to accept but have you heard about the Libertarian party?

 

 

[Guard Dog]

30 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

GD I think its time you acknowledge  the established US parties have let you down and you voted for someone else

I know its not a nice thing to accept but have you heard about the Libertarian party?

 

 

I'll have to look into that.