The All Things Political Topic - Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation

[Raithe]

Not strictly political...

[Gorth]

Ah yes, speaking of Her Royal Importantness and Australia... I only just found out this afternoon that I have Thursday off because we celebrate the death of the queen (or mourn it or whatever). Then a bit more than a week after that we get a day off to celebrate her birthday. Somebody better get the calendars updated for next year (the various states celebrate her birthday on different dates, to fit into some gap where there are few public holidays, so it's a different date from state to state, but would probably be tasteless anyway to keep celebrating)

[Raithe]

 

[Malcador]

Impressive show, that procession.  Was an odd moment where one soldier just walked among the formation, like he was correcting people or something. 

[Gromnir]

6 hours ago, Raithe said:

 

 

we hate to be that guy.

nudity in code is a legal definition as 'posed to dictionary. public nudity is described in code by means o' all too often dated, comical, and crude language including mentions o' "pubic hair" and similar. the thing is, in the edited video you likely don't see where cops no doubt inform the young lady how exposed "buttocks" is enough to satisfy public nudity laws in the carolinas, portions o' the south excluding most o' florida, as well as much o' the heartland. just 'cause you know what nude means don't result in you being correct 'bout definitions o' nudity in law. 

...

some o' us praise democracy when it results in statues memorializing civil war icons being taken down in tennessee and alabama. if The People finally recognize that statues erected purposeful during the 1920s and civil rights era as part o' a concerted and intentional effort to degrade and demoralize black populations should be removed as prominent public displays, then such is democracy working as designed, no? 

unfortunately we don't like democracy near as much when it leads to books 'bout transgender youth being removed from local libraries 'cause the undereducated and angry majorities in backwaters has been convinced by skeevy politicians that all that gay sh!t is a threat to real american values.

democracy is not inherent wise or smart. democracy is one more than 50/50 deciding what is gonna be best for everybody... and with representative democracy is possible for a minority to functional be deciding what is best for the majority. 

regardless, "nude" don't necessarily mean what the young lady believes it means. "nude" has whatever meaning The People decided it should mean, 'cause like it or not, that is how democracy works.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Gromnir

[Amentep]

IIRC the Myrtle Beach Thong thing is from 2 years ago.  Last I heard the lady in question was pushing to have the law changed (did a cursory look and didn't see any updates past Aug 2020 on the story).

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Amentep said:

Last I heard the lady in question was pushing to have the law changed

which is precise how democracy is s'posed to work.

*shrug*

is a whole lotta laws we personal believe is foolish and/or counter productive. our feels is immaterial. if amentep is correct and thong lady is active trying to have the law or ordinance changed, then we applaud her civic virtue, but until she succeeds, her exposed buttocks in a thong is likely gonna continue to count as being nude for purposes o' code. 

regardless, is many words which mean something different in law as 'posed to the oed or merriam-webster entries. also, tweets and tik-tok videos have a tendency to be misleading.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

Ah yes, speaking of Her Royal Importantness and Australia... I only just found out this afternoon that I have Thursday off because we celebrate the death of the queen (or mourn it or whatever). Then a bit more than a week after that we get a day off to celebrate her birthday. Somebody better get the calendars updated for next year (the various states celebrate her birthday on different dates, to fit into some gap where there are few public holidays, so it's a different date from state to state, but would probably be tasteless anyway to keep celebrating)

Nice to see you recognising the Queens passing Gothforscious, it took long enough 

And  most people dont celebrate at funerals, maybe in Denmark but generally you mourn and pay respect in most countries and cultures?

[BruceVC]

Im watching the procession and ceremony and its really impressive, extremely well done. Sad but something to see, the end of era. Imagine living a life where so many people care about your passing and are truly emotional

I mentioned this on another post  but one of the several things I will never forget about the Queens' funeral is how many people came from all over the world to pay their respects

Yesterday on Sky they interviewed a group of 6 women, age 60-65,  from the US who hadnt slept for 40 hours and were in the line to see the coffin, they were asked "why did you come all the way from the US" and they said "her life and actions is something we really admire and we wanted to pay our respects. We wouldnt do this for any US politician " ....says something about how the Queen resonated with people globally 

[Gromnir]

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

Ah yes, speaking of Her Royal Importantness and Australia... I only just found out this afternoon that I have Thursday off because we celebrate the death of the queen (or mourn it or whatever). Then a bit more than a week after that we get a day off to celebrate her birthday. Somebody better get the calendars updated for next year (the various states celebrate her birthday on different dates, to fit into some gap where there are few public holidays, so it's a different date from state to state, but would probably be tasteless anyway to keep celebrating)

last time we serious checked were 2013 and at that time it were still technically illegal for a citizen o' the uk to suggest the abolishment o' the monarchy. the only reason am aware o' such is 'cause in the early 90s we saw a guy get arrested in hyde park for his public demand o' an end to the monarchy. were a bit shocking to see such happen and so we periodic checked if the law remained valid.

given the national mourning current underway, we has been embracing uncharacteristic restraint, but am thinking @Gorth would be unsurprised to learn we got a few thoughts on monarchies and monarchs.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gorth]

I could probably make a few guesses

You might get a good and benevolent monarch, you might get stuck with an unmitigated disaster for life. My inner anarchist does not appreciate authority with no accountability.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I could probably make a few guesses

You might get a good and benevolent monarch, you might get stuck with an unmitigated disaster for life. My inner anarchist does not appreciate authority with no accountability.

Well, the UK's not really like that, no ?  Is interesting to note here how few people understand how it works - occasionally see some Canadians thinking we send money to the UK. Well that and the money we spend on the GG will mystically fall to zero when we get a President

[Chairchucker]

18 hours ago, Gorth said:

Ah yes, speaking of Her Royal Importantness and Australia... I only just found out this afternoon that I have Thursday off because we celebrate the death of the queen (or mourn it or whatever). Then a bit more than a week after that we get a day off to celebrate her birthday. Somebody better get the calendars updated for next year (the various states celebrate her birthday on different dates, to fit into some gap where there are few public holidays, so it's a different date from state to state, but would probably be tasteless anyway to keep celebrating)

I believe the plan is to just rebadge it to 'King's Birthday' holiday and carry on. I was, for a moment, hopeful we might get a double dip by moving it to a King's Birthday on King Charles' actual birthday in November. Ah well.

 

I shall be spending my 'day of mourning' sleeping in and playing video games, most likely.

 

15 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And  most people dont celebrate at funerals, maybe in Denmark but generally you mourn and pay respect in most countries and cultures?

Someone obviously hasn't seen The Wizard of Oz. (To be fair, neither have I.)

Edited September 20, 2022 by Chairchucker

[Gromnir]

‘As Far as I’m Concerned, That’s the End of It’: Skeptical Special Master Presses Trump’s Lawyers on Declassification Evasions at Hearing

so, judge cannon ordered a special master to review documents and her rationale were in part that a neutral third-party expert with an intelligence background could wade into the complex issue o' whether the Presidential Record Act ,by means o' possible declassification trump's lawyers had not yet claimed trump had exercised, somehow resulted in unresolved questions o' fact and law and the sooper-sage special master could then find solutions to such profound problems.

again, keep in mind this kinda effort by a plaintiff to exclude evidence typical takes place after the indictment, so the whole situation is kinda unprecedented particularly as judge cannon did not suggest the fbi had acted improper but rather observed that somehow 'cause o' trump being an EX-president, coupled with public distrust in the doj and fbi, specific warranted a special master review. regardless o' the fact the only documents doj were resisting insofar as special master review were the clear marked classified, secret and top secret stuff, the judge went ahead and granted trump's request for a special master to review all material seized during the warrant search.

"that's the end of it," is gonna be seen as a criticism o' trump's legal team, but is actual a shot at judge cannon. special master judge raymond dearie asked a handful o' simple and obvious questions, questions judge cannon shoulda' asked before appointing a special master. judge dearie made more than obvious that at this pre-indictment stage there ain't no complex issues o' law or fact and no special knowledge or handling were required to decide if classified, secret and top secret documents need be returned to trump. 

what an utterly incomprehensible waste o' time.

a district court judge's rulings does not establish precedent, so am wondering if the doj should risk the possibility the 11th circuit were sniffing the same glue judge cannon got ahold o' before making her special master decision. for all intents and purposes, the doj won, so is there a reason to press their luck and risk having judge cannon's special brand o' stoopid be remembered five years from now as anything more than an obscure footnote in a law journal article or history book? 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chairchucker]

Does this count as politics? Let's find out!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/alastair-clarkson-and-chris-fagan-named-in-hawks-review/101452320

Yes it's sports but it's also politics, looks like our biggest sporting league may have a wee problem with systemic racism.

OF NOTE:

It is believed the review was similar in scope to Collingwood's 'Do Better' review of 2021 and will have similarly dramatic ramifications.

(Almost nothing came of that review, but this one sounds like it turned up some even worse stuff, so maybe things will be different. Or maybe it will all be rugswept and in a few years time the men who bullied young recruits into breaking up with partners or having pregnancies terminated will be welcomed back with open arms because 'everybody deserves a second chance'.)

Edited September 21, 2022 by Chairchucker

[Gromnir]

Why this New York lawsuit is really going to anger Donald Trump

the one understated advantage letitia james has in suing trump org is trump's ego. am thinking it will come as a shock to nobody that trump inflated the value o' his assets in attempting to secure loans from financial institutions. the thing is, there ain't no fraud unless those lenders relied on trump false statements. for there to be fraud, there needs be somebody who were in fact duped. to that end, trump's best defense is to show that his propensity for untruth were so well known that no lender took his financial disclosures serious. am not doubting trump has masses o' documents showing lenders refusing to give him money clarifying that the reason for refusal to lend money were that banks did their own due diligence and in spite o' trump claims o' wealth, trump org represented far too great a risk. show a big stack o' such letters as proof that nobody with any sense believed trump is a valid defense.

heck, is not a secret that trump to this day is persona no grata insofar as wall street is concerned and in the 90s nobody other than deutsche bank would lend to trump, and deutsche bank were unlikely caught unawares, but knowing the risk involved, they lent increasing amounts to trump. so who were the suckers duped by trump? 

regardless am suspecting trump's best defense is to reveal what a transparently terrible lending prospect were trump org and that nobody in the industry would be fooled by his fabulist tendencies and outright lies regarding the worth o' trump property. have trump lawyers public admit just how little he were worth and that only the willful obtuse would be believing trump's financial statements? is hard to imagine trump being okie dokie with such a strategy.

as to tax fraud... well that is a different issue and a different case altogether.

edit:

pretty much eviscerates judge cannon.

no property interest by trump. no harm in being deprived of documents he never owned. trump didn't make any claim the documents were classified and in any event, they are classified presumptive for a pre indictment situation as in the present context. the current executive has broad discretion to decide and investigate matters o' national security, so deprive the fed o' a chance to do investigations o' the documents absent any proffer o' evidence such were seized improper is an improper exercise o' judicial power and beyond the scope o' a special master. etc.

trump and judge cannon just had their lunch money took... again. first judge dearie and now a unanimous 11th circuit court of appeals. has been a bad week for trump, and is only wednesday.

HA! Good Fun!

ps the 11th circuit stay is not particular meaningful in the grand scope o' a possible case by the US v. trump, a case which don't exist as yet 'cause has been no indictment. 11th circuit efforts has no impact on the merits o' a case not yet brought by the doj. this whole judicial exercise insofar as the special master has been an inexplicable waste o' time and the fact the 11th circuit needed to weigh in woulda' been incomprehensible to us save for the fact it actual happened... so shame on Gromnir. but again, our point o' adding the ps is that insofar as trump possible being indicted and going to prison for obstruction or illegal possession o' state secrets, this ruling is correct but relative meaningless in that all it achieves is a metaphorical trout slap to the face o' judge cannon and team trump. it also presumptive ends unnecessary delay.

converse, insofar as the impact o' the feds being able to investigate the damage trump did to security assets as 'posed to sitting on their hands, this could be a big deal... is just not meaningful from a potential US v. trump scenario. 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

"so even if we assumed the plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them."

am not certain why so few tv lawyers bother to mention what Gromnir and the 11th circuit believe is both essential and obvious, but there you have it.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

am knowing this is getting repetitive, but...

Dearie asks Trump lawyers whether they believe FBI lied about seized documents

title o' linked article is misleading 'cause what judge asks for is proof from trump that the fbi did shiesty & shady when conducting their warrant search o' mar-a-lago.

...

am admitted moderate annoyed with the vast majority o' tv lawyers regarding this special master nonsense and their observations o' the ruling by judge cannon. we spent a couple weeks listening to responsible attorneys explain the issues related to the trump search and the subsequent request for a special master as part o' team trump's 41(g) motion. how many times did we hear that while they disagreed with her, perhaps judge cannon was being cautious and affording the ex-President the benefit of the doubt given the unique and highly publicized circumstances. pundits focused on irrelevancies and embraced the nonsense. made us moderate annoyed.

#$%@

this current exercise in stoopid with regard to a special master all stems from a 41(g) motion by trump, a motion which we has repeated observed is a CIVIL action with trump as plaintiff. there is no f'ing benefit o' the doubt in favour o' a plaintiff in civil 41(g) motion. judge cannon making arguments for trump which team trump did not make as well as assuming some kinda possibility o' nefarious activity by the fbi is so freaking opposite o' the manner in which every other 41(g) motion ever has been adjudicated that we were having a difficult time believing any district judge woulda' served up such a steaming plate o' _________ with the expectation the doj would swallow.

judge dearie, the special master, isn't doing anything particular surprising by demanding trump to prove documents is classified and demanding evidence o' fbi malfeasance not to mention requesting answers to obvious threshold questions such as why has a special need for items seized. it may appear as if judge dearie is being uncompromising but truth is he is doing exact as one woulda expected o' judge cannon if she had been doing her job.

the obvious flaws with judge cannon's special master ruling were jaw drop levels beyond the realm o' plausible, relying on no relevant precedent, reversing burden o' proof and ignoring fact that trump had never offered any explanation as to why documents classified were in fact his property or presenting a reason why he had a special need for their expedited return. 

but again, we need remind persons how we are in fact opining 'bout a civil conflict 'tween trump and the doj. not criminal. if the doj decides to indict, then they need prove guilt o' the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and they is quite possible gonna be attempting to prove trump were guilty o' crimes under the espionage act, one o' the more maligned bits o' law existing on the fed books... although admitted the law is criticized for reasons not related to trump's willful withholding o' documents. is quite possible many on this board already see trump as an obvious wrongdoer and there is no way any honest court in the land would find trump anything but guilty. is a bad starting point. likely setting self up for disappointment. reality is the doj faces a difficult task particularly as you are gonna be hard-pressed to find an american jury w/o at least one or two persons as certain o' trump's innocence as many here are o' his guilt.  

temper expectations and remind self the most important part o' the mar-a-lago warrant search were separating confidential, secret and top secret documents from an ex-President with questionable security motivations. as 'posed to the doj successful prosecuting trump, am personal more concerned with the possibility trump has similar stashes o' documents elsewhere or that he has already shared state secrets with country club guests either ignorant o' the possible damage or even knowing full well what wrongs he is causing. oh, and put trump in prison does not end the damage he might do, not by a long shot. if jan 6 didn't prove to you that trump will watch everything burn as some calculated effort to save his own copious arse or just outta spite, then am not certain anything will. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps alan dershowitz tried similar special master 41(g) nonsense on behalf o' mike lindell

to say the judge, a trump appointee, were less than gentle with the plaintiffs is describing in mild terms. took less than 5 whole pages to utter emasculate team lindell.

a few favorite passages with our emphasis added to direct attention:

Though Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) as the basis for 
their motion, Plaintiffs do not discuss the Rule or cite any authority that might explain why 
the cellphone’s return is appropriate under the Rule. To be clear, Plaintiffs cite Rule 41(g) 
in their Motion and in the caption and introductory paragraph of their Memorandum. But 
that’s it. 

...

Absent an obvious answer that Rule 41(g) requires the cellphone’s return, it would be a stretch to grant relief  on the basis of this rule when the moving parties nowhere explain how the Rule’s procedural framework and substantive standards support the request. 

...

(3) Whether Rule 41(g) requires the cellphone’s return is not obvious, and that’s 
understating things.

...

Far wiser to hear from Defendants (and Plaintiffs) regarding these and other potentially relevant factual and legal questions before deciding 
any aspect of Plaintiffs’ motion.

...

Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF No. 9] is DENIED

...

*chuckle*

might not be obvious, but the "and Plaintiffs," comment is the equivalent o' a backhand slap.  

now keep in mind, the phone seized by law enforcement in question is in fact mike lindell's, so is a smidge different than the classified docs from mar-a-lago, but more significant, dershowitz and his clown car team were requesting relief ex parte, meaning they were trying to pull off this sleight o' hand w/o any input from the doj and what would appear an intentional effort to avoid doj participation. at least with mar-a-lago the doj were present to explain why what were being demanded were... stoopid. took cojones the size o' church bells for alan to request 41(g) relief ex parte, and am s'posing if the 11th circuit had ruled different then maybe dershowitz would look like a genius today 'stead o'

nevertheless, am recognizing how if the 11th circuit did the improbable (but no more unlikely than cannon's silliness) and effective rewrote 41(g), then alan maybe gets his special master, so perhaps were worth the effort. 

regardless, is a good day for those who like to watch maga lawyers being ridiculed by judges.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 23, 2022 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

regardless, is a good day for those who like to watch maga lawyers being ridiculed by judges.

If you strung them all together in a tv drama series, it would probably be as long as the infamous Brazilian Soap series

[Gorth]

@InsaneCommander this one's for you (fresh off the press a few hours ago)

 

 

 

[Sarex]

Wonder why the US doesn't send some freedom Brazil's way... Oh right...

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

@InsaneCommander this one's for you (fresh off the press a few hours ago)

 

 

 

Her accent, was it dubbed?

Very funny 

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Her accent, was it dubbed?

Very funny 

It was a collaboration with a Brazilian activist (according to the Patreon supporter email I got)

 

[InsaneCommander]

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

@InsaneCommander this one's for you (fresh off the press a few hours ago)

 

 

 

We have a saying here in Brazil: "I'll laugh so that I don't cry." Perfect for this. I almost choked drinking coffee with the "democracy" at 0:07. The only thing missing in the video is the Bolsonaro clan's language in social media (the worst in swearing and vulgarity, definitely not what you would expect from a president and congressmen - his sons and nephew) and the fact that the alternative is Lula, who seems to be trying really hard to sabotage himself in this election. He already confessed his corruption, robbing public money and even said that it is ok to beat women, so long as you don't do it at home...

This is incredibly accurate and up to date and the data about the Amazon is really sad. Wait a few weeks and you'll hear about the "Brazilian Capitol".

 

5 hours ago, Sarex said:

Wonder why the US doesn't send some freedom Brazil's way... Oh right...

I would comment on all the irregularities in the "Car Wash Operation", but you can simply scroll down that page and see the "related" news. It is all there.

[majestic]

Hey @BruceVC, how's the party coming long, looks like you've got actual fascists ruling Italy pretty soon. Any plans to move there?